DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/555,665 filed on 10/16/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/555,665 filed 10/16/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/060597, International Filing Date: 04/21/2022, and claims foreign priority to 21169862.6, filed 04/22/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/16/2023 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 7 limitations “accessing means to” and “enabling means to.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations “accessing means to” and “enabling means to” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification does not appear to provide a clear/definite description of the structure for performing the claim functions of the “accessing means to” and “enabling means to.” If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “accessing means to” and “enabling means to”. These limitations invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The Specification does not describe a particular structure for performing the functions of the “accessing means to” and “enabling means to”. The Specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed functions. No association between the structure and the functions can be found in the specification. Consequently, it is not clear which structure and equivalents may be read into each of these limitations. The Specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieved the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
12. Claim 1 recites “a) decentrally storing the lifecycle-data and providing access to the stored lifecycle-data through a "Peer-to-Peer-Network"-based blockchain technology for various stakeholders involved in a production good-lifecycle and participated regarding the "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes.” The phrase “and participated regarding the "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes” is unclear and indefinite because it uses wording like "participated regarding," which fails to specify the nature or extent of involvement by the stakeholders. It is not clear whether the stakeholders are merely accessing data, actively storing it, or functioning as full network nodes. Additionally, the sentence lacks a clear grammatical structure, making it ambiguous who or what is participating and how that relates to the blockchain-based storage and access. This ambiguity creates uncertainty about the roles, responsibilities, and technical implementation, thus rendering the limitation indefinite. Independent claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to be indefinite for the same reasons provided for claim 1. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
13. Claim 1 recites “c) enabling a dynamic data structure of the lifecycle-data through a knowledge graph based on entities being related to one other via edges, assigned attributes and brought into thematic context of ontologies, which as data models show properties of the production good and how these properties are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the lifecycle-data of the production good such that due to the graph representation flexible modifications of the graph structured data models without violating data consistency are allowed.” This limitation is unclear and indefinite because it lacks clear referents and uses nested phrasing that obscures the meaning of the limitation. Specifically, the phrase “brought into thematic context of ontologies, which as data models show properties of the production good…” is ambiguous. It is not clear what exactly is being “brought into” the context of ontologies - whether it's the entities, the attributes, the edges, or the entire knowledge graph. Furthermore, the clause “which as data models show properties...” is grammatically confusing and makes it unclear whether “ontologies,” “data models,” or some other element are the subject. The overall structure of the sentence blends multiple concepts (knowledge graphs, ontologies, properties, lifecycle data, and graph modifications) without clearly defining their relationships or roles, making the scope and function of each component unclear, thus rendering the limitation indefinite. Independent claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to be indefinite for the same reasons provided for claim 1. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
14. Claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 3, wherein the lifecycle-data of the electrical energy storage respectively the primary cell/battery or the secondary cell/battery include at least one of production parameters, operation information, analyzed performance data from field applications and documentation data such as "carbon footprint and other environmental or societal impact factors, e.g. water and land consumption, labor conditions, over lifetime", raw material sources or recycling quota.” Regarding claim 5 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Similarly, Regarding, the phrase "e.g. " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
15. Claim 7 recites “A data management system for executing data management of production goods, by which lifecycle-data of a production good is stored for data accesses, wherein: a) a peer-to-peer-network with network nodes implementing blockchain technology…, b) accessing means to access selectively the lifecycle-data through a cryptographic hierarchical, mechanism with a public key and a private key…, c) enabling means to enable a dynamic data structure of the lifecycle-data through a knowledge graph based on entities.” Applicant’s Specification does not appear to provide a clear/definite description of the structure for performing the claim functions of the “accessing means to” and “enabling means to”. Therefore the scope of this limitation, and these claims, is rendered indefinite. Applicant should either amend the claims or to clearly identify in the Specification which structural elements perform the function of the claimed components. Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent from above rejected claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-5) and system (claims 6-11) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-11 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in the MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing production goods data, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: a) decentrally storing the lifecycle-data and providing access to the stored lifecycle-data through a "Peer-to-Peer-Network"-based blockchain technology for various stakeholders involved in a production good-lifecycle and participated regarding the "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes, b) selectively accessing the lifecycle-data through a cryptographic mechanism with a public key and a private key by which each stakeholder is able to grant or deny the access for different stakeholders, c) enabling a dynamic data structure of the lifecycle-data through a knowledge graph based on entities being related to one other via edges, assigned attributes and brought into thematic context of ontologies, which as data models show properties of the production good and how these properties are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the lifecycle-data of the production good such that due to the graph representation flexible modifications of the graph structured data models without violating data consistency are allowed. These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and are part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and steps that can be performed in the human mind, and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping and the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry. Independent claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, the additional elements are: a "Peer-to-Peer-Network"-based blockchain technology, "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes, a cryptographic mechanism with a public key and a private key (claim 1); a peer-to-peer-network with network nodes implementing blockchain technology, the "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes, accessing means, a cryptographic hierarchical, mechanism with a public key (PUK) and a private key, and enabling means (claim 7). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, the additional elements are: a "Peer-to-Peer-Network"-based blockchain technology, "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes, a cryptographic mechanism with a public key and a private key (claim 1); a peer-to-peer-network with network nodes implementing blockchain technology, the "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes, accessing means, a cryptographic hierarchical, mechanism with a public key (PUK) and a private key, and enabling means (claim 7). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0055]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims by reciting steps/details for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions) and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, dependent claims 2-6 recite “wherein the lifecycle-data is stored,” “wherein the production good is an electrical energy storage, in particular a primary cell/battery or a secondary cell/battery,” “wherein the production good-lifecycle is a lifecycle of the electrical energy storage respectively the primary cell/battery or the secondary cell/battery,” “wherein the lifecycle-data of the electrical energy storage respectively the primary cell/battery or the secondary cell/battery include at least one of production parameters, operation information, analyzed performance data from field applications and documentation data such as "carbon footprint and other environmental or societal impact factors, e.g. water and land consumption, labor conditions, over lifetime", raw material sources or recycling quota,” “carrying out the computer-implemented method according to claim 1,” which are details that merely refine the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims. The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to dependent claims 2-6, recite details/steps that merely refine the same abstract idea recite in the independent claims. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include a decentral blockchain (claims 2 and 8), computer-implemented tool, a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium having processor-readable program-instructions of a program module for carrying out the computer-implemented method stored in the non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium and a processor connected with the storage medium executing the processor-readable program-instructions of the program module to carry out the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 (claim 6) are directed to generic computing elements and instructions/software that serve to tie the abstract to a particular technological environment, similar to simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
23. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., Pub. No.: US 2022/0057345 A1, [hereinafter Young], in view of Han et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0312869 A1, [hereinafter Han].
As per claim 1, Han teaches a computer-implemented method for executing data management of production goods, by which lifecycle-data of a production good is stored for data accesses, the method (paragraph 0023) comprising:
a) decentrally storing the lifecycle-data and providing access to the stored lifecycle-data through a "Peer-to-Peer-Network"-based blockchain technology for various stakeholders involved in a production good-lifecycle and participated regarding the "blockchain technology"-based storage and access as network nodes (paragraph 0034, discussing that the term “distributed ledger technology” or “DLT” refers to a database infrastructure that can be held, written, accessed, and managed by a number of nodes or participating compute devices across a network. “Blockchain” is one such DLT that utilizes packets of data called “blocks” to hold information about transactions, events, tasks. In blockchain, new blocks are recorded chronologically by the network and only when a node in the network fulfills certain conditions of the DLT's consensus mechanism (known as proof-of-work in blockchain); paragraph 0068, discussing that the system can be connected to a DApp (decentralized application) or utilizes a DApp on a decentralized network. The use of a DApp can protect the security of data and provide peer-to-peer interactions or transactions between parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution, and governance. In some embodiments, the system can be configured to send and receive at least one datum to or from a decentralized network. The system can make use of a DLT (distributed ledger technology) to store, access, and write at least one datum that is immutable and secure. The system can allow for the storage, access, and writing of at least one datum by various parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution and governance; paragraph 0072, discussing that a decentralized application (DApp) can be used to track information about batteries or other energy storage devices. These batteries can have unique identifiers or signatures that allow for the easy identification in locations such as collection units, manufacturers, sorters, recyclers, and by other such as governing bodies or consumers. A DApp can enable the efficient tracking of this information through the lifecycle of the battery while also keeping the information secure and safe, as well as participants, owners, or temporary holders of the battery secure; paragraph 0035),
b) selectively accessing the lifecycle-data (paragraph 0034, discussing that the term “distributed ledger technology” or “DLT” refers to a database infrastructure that can be held, written, accessed, and managed by a number of nodes or participating compute devices across a network. “Blockchain” is one such DLT that utilizes packets of data called “blocks” to hold information about transactions, events, tasks. In blockchain, new blocks are recorded chronologically by the network and only when a node in the network fulfills certain conditions of the DLT's consensus mechanism (known as proof-of-work in blockchain; paragraph 0068, discussing that the system can be connected to a DApp (decentralized application) or utilizes a DApp on a decentralized network. The use of a DApp can, for example, protect the security of data and provide peer-to-peer interactions or transactions between parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution, and governance. In some embodiments, the system can be configured to send and receive at least one datum to or from a decentralized network. The system can make use of a distributed ledger technology to store, access, and write at least one datum that is immutable and secure. The system can allow for the storage, access, and writing of at least one datum by various parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution and governance; paragraph 0070, discussing that a DApp can be used to create interactions between different stakeholders in the LIB or energy storage device industry. Each participant can interact with any other via such a decentralized application or using a decentralized network for various activities such as to form partnerships, initiate smart contracts, transact, or share information (see, e.g., FIG. 10); paragraph 0096).
Young does not explicitly teach through a cryptographic mechanism with a public key and a private key by which each stakeholder is able to grant or deny the access for different stakeholders; and c) enabling a dynamic data structure of the lifecycle-data through a knowledge graph based on entities being related to one other via edges, assigned attributes and brought into thematic context of ontologies, which as data models show properties of the production good and how these properties are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the lifecycle-data of the production good such that due to the graph representation flexible modifications of the graph structured data models without violating data consistency are allowed. However, Han in the analogous art of data management systems teaches these concepts. Han teaches:
(b) selectively accessing the lifecycle-data through a cryptographic mechanism with a public key and a private key by which each stakeholder is able to grant or deny the access for different stakeholders (paragraph 0030, discussing that blockchain or distributed ledger systems have been proposed for a variety of application scenarios, including applications in the financial industry, healthcare, emerging markets, and so forth. An early example of a blockchain involved a cryptocurrency generated when new blocks were created on the blockchain to confirm events. These new blocks may confirm transfer of cryptocurrency generated in earlier blocks. The blocks on the blockchain were cryptographically proofed and linked to earlier blocks and served as an immutable record of the events in a trustless decentralized peer-to-peer network. For example, a cryptocurrency may be represented as a chain of events that transfers ownership from one party to another party on a blockchain without an intermediary. Each event transferring ownership from one party to another may then be cryptographically proofed by including the public key of the new owner. Also, each event may be digitally signed with the current owner's private key; paragraph 0084, discussing that FIG. 5 illustrates permissioned access to a knowledge graph...It should be appreciated that various actions, such as writing, reading, and/or validation of blockchain entries, of a global knowledge graph may be limited to those with cryptographic access. In this way, it may allow a regulatory body, for example, to oversee using one or more validation mechanisms...Both blockchain (or distributed ledger) and knowledge graphs may then be distributed and decentralized, where not all nodes are required to insert or store data to complete blockchain. Banks, governing bodies, regulators, or other participating entities may participate in block validation; paragraph 0092, discoing that an advantage this provides to consumers is that there may be a verifiable provenance chain that allows a user or entity to trace an items path back to an original source. Participating entities may benefit from increased data interoperability that facilitates integration and collaboration along the supply chain), and
c) enabling a dynamic data structure of the lifecycle-data through a knowledge graph based on entities being related to one other via edges, assigned attributes and brought into thematic context of ontologies, which as data models show properties of the production good and how these properties are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the lifecycle-data of the production good such that due to the graph representation flexible modifications of the graph structured data models without violating data consistency are allowed (paragraph 0022, discussing that knowledge graphs may also be used to provide and facilitate collaboration of shared data. Compared to other knowledge-oriented information systems, a knowledge graph based system may offer a special combination of knowledge representation structures, information management processes, and search algorithms. A knowledge graph may provide an organized graph that ties nodes and edges. A node may be related to semantic concepts, such as persons, objects, entities, events, etc. An edge may be defined by relations between nodes based on semantics; paragraph 0025, discussing that since the underlying basis of a knowledge graph is the ontology, which specifies the semantics of data, a knowledge graph may be based on logical formalisms, which may support a variety of inferences or educated guesses. Because knowledge graphs are graphs by nature and provide a visual representation, this may also allow various graph-computing techniques and algorithms to add additional intelligence over stored data. Lastly, a knowledge graph may be easily updatable and may change with newly-infused data. Data growth is important, especially when dealing with heterogeneous sources; paragraph 0026, discussing that a knowledge graph may therefore support a continuously running pipeline of information, adding to the graph, refining the graph, all as new information continues to arrive…It should also be appreciated that a knowledge graph may enhance effectiveness of traditional information processing systems (e.g., information extraction, search, recommendation, question answering, etc.) by providing valuable background domain knowledge; paragraph 0027, discussing that a knowledge graph based information system may allow ease of access to computer systems by end users. It may also empower user communities to represent, manage, and share knowledge in highly collaborative ways; paragraph 0067, discussing that by providing an analytics technique using distributed ledgers to store validated data in a global knowledge graph, the analytics system may enable the user to analyze the details and nuances of many solutions at the same time in an explanatory fashion...A knowledge graph based analytics system may allow a user to explore a large number nodes and semantic relationships efficiently in less time than it would take a typical practitioner to evaluate. In this way, the analytics system may incorporate a whole host of media and information, in a heterogeneous manner, that results in a more efficient and more intuitive way of monitoring and managing assets and equipment; paragraph 0080, discussing that the query expansion may take information from the nodes and edges, in this case the entities and relations, as well as information from any related and existing knowledge graph, and expand the original input to include additional relevant entities and relations from the knowledge graph into usable text 402. Using entity and relation expansion, as well as additional text transformations, entities and relations may be used to plot a metric space graph or other usable metric; paragraph 0090, discussing that this core schema framework may be used to track provenance in manufacturing supply chains. To achieve this, entities in a supply chain may come to an agreement to share data in a common knowledge graph. The terms of this knowledge graph may be defined in advance and may comprise a core vocabulary. Extensions to this schema may then be introduced as required by subscribing entities, and would likely converge towards the W3C recommended PROV ontology, as shown in FIG. 6B; paragraph 0091, discussing that data at various points of the supply chain may be inserted into a knowledge graph and may be used to track provenance for items in the supply chain. In this manner, items may be tracked from source (e.g., manufacturing facility or farm), through packaging, logistics, store-delivery, in-store tracking, and/or customer point-of-sale; paragraph 0092)
Young is directed towards system and method for data management and distributed ledger technology. Han is directed towards a method and system for using distributed ledgers to store validated data in a global knowledge graph. Therefore they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards data management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Young with Han because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for distributed ledgers and data management, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (data management system), and because modifying Young to include Han’s features for including selectively accessing the lifecycle-data through a cryptographic mechanism with a public key and a private key by which each stakeholder is able to grant or deny the access for different stakeholders; and enabling a dynamic data structure of the lifecycle-data through a knowledge graph based on entities being related to one other via edges, assigned attributes and brought into thematic context of ontologies, which as data models show properties of the production good and how these properties are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the lifecycle-data of the production good such that due to the graph representation flexible modifications of the graph structured data models without violating data consistency are allowed, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of reliably reducing risks associated with data transactions (Han, paragraph 0005); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the Young-Han combination teaches the method according to claim 1. Young further teaches wherein the lifecycle-data is stored in a decentral blockchain (paragraph 0034, discussing that the term “distributed ledger technology” or “DLT” refers to a database infrastructure that can be held, written, accessed, and managed by a number of nodes or participating compute devices across a network. “Blockchain” is one such DLT that utilizes packets of data called “blocks” to hold information about transactions, events, tasks. In blockchain, new blocks are recorded chronologically by the network and only when a node in the network fulfills certain conditions of the DLT's consensus mechanism (known as proof-of-work in blockchain); paragraph 0068, discussing that the system can be connected to a DApp (decentralized application) or utilizes a DApp on a decentralized network. The use of a DApp can protect the security of data and provide peer-to-peer interactions or transactions between parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution, and governance. In some embodiments, the system can be configured to send and receive at least one datum to or from a decentralized network. The system can make use of a DLT (distributed ledger technology) to store, access, and write at least one datum that is immutable and secure. The system can allow for the storage, access, and writing of at least one datum by various parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution and governance; paragraph 0072, discussing that a decentralized application (DApp) can be used to track information about batteries or other energy storage devices. These batteries can have unique identifiers or signatures that allow for the easy identification in locations such as collection units, manufacturers, sorters, recyclers, and by other such as governing bodies or consumers. A DApp can enable the efficient tracking of this information through the lifecycle of the battery while also keeping the information secure and safe, as well as participants, owners, or temporary holders of the battery secure; paragraph 0035).
As per claim 3, the Young-Han combination teaches the method according to claim 1. Young further teaches wherein the production good is an electrical energy storage, in particular a primary cell/battery or a secondary cell/battery (paragraph 0030, discussing that “energy storage device” refers to any system, apparatus, or device that stores energy in the form of chemical, electrochemical, electrical, or other potential energy, which can be harvested or channeled for use. Energy storage devices include, but are not limited to, batteries, fuel cells, capacitors, and supercapacitors; paragraph 0068, discussing that the system can be connected to a DApp or utilizes a DApp on a decentralized network. The use of a DApp can, for example, protect the security of data and provide peer-to-peer interactions or transactions between parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution, and governance…The system can allow for the storage, access, and writing of at least one datum by various parties involved in battery collection, transportation, sorting, recycling, manufacturing, distribution and governance; paragraph 0072, discussing that a distributed application can be used to track information about batteries or other energy storage devices. These batteries can have unique identifiers or signatures that allow for the easy identification in locations such as collection units, manufacturers, sorters, recyclers, and by other such as governing bodies or consumers. A DApp can enable the efficient tracking of this information through the lifecycle of the battery while also keeping the information secure and safe; paragraphs 0019, 0069, 0071).
As per claim 4, the Young-Han combination teaches the method according to claim 3. Young further teaches wherein the production good-lifecycle is a lifecycle of the electrical energy storage respectively the primary cell/battery or the secondary cell/battery (paragraph 0004, discussing that collecting, sorting, and packaging are usually performed for the recycling or disposal of energy storage devices including lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), and other energy storage devices. End-of-life (EOL) LIBs or other LIB waste require a mode of collection that can be centralized or decentralized to gather LIBs for recycling or disposal. LIBs can then be sorted to separate LIBs from non-LIBs, as well as to separate different LIBs of different chemistries. Sorting end-of-life (EOL) LIBs based on material chemistries is beneficial for direct recycling of EOL LIBs; paragraph 0019, discussing a decentralized waste management system for processing end-of-life (EOL) batteries; paragraph 0072, discussing that a decent