DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
Applicant’s response filed September 8, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are examined below.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Information Disclosure Statement
The attached information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd Paragraph
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 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 that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform to current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See below for examples of errors in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “the appraisal and authentication is further performed by the processor using the appraisal required product, and the transaction hash or the two-dimensional code output from the dedicated platform and generated, and a small recording medium (ai) that records a secret key ai and product information on the appraisal required product is attached to or incorporated in the appraisal required product” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, this recitation does not make sense grammatically. Second, it is unclear whether the “small recording medium” is part of applicant’s invention, or not.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “the product information and transaction information at respective distribution stages until the appraisal required product reaches a consumer are recorded by the processor on a blockchain” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is a narrative recitation that does not clearly limit the system. It appears that applicant is claiming method steps that must be completed, but this is a system claim. Narrative recitations of this type occur throughout the claims and are not limited to this particular recitation.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation of “application [A]” and “application [B]” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear what structure is required by these recitations. Based on applicant's specification, the applications appear to be software. However, software is not structure. Although this software is “executed by a controller” in a terminal, that is not the same as claiming that the terminal comprises the software. “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, the scope of claim 1 would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, because it is unclear what structure is or is not required by these applications.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “the fourth hash is generated based on the transaction hash or the two-dimensional code corresponding thereto acquired from the appraisal authenticating person, and the fifth hash is read from the blockchain by the processor based on the product information and the transaction information with the secret key ɑ1 assigned to the appraisal required product using the application [B] by the appraisal authenticating person” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is a narrative recitation that does not clearly limit the system. It is unclear what structure performs these steps. Additionally, this is a system claims, so reciting method steps does not make sense.
Claims 3 and 4 contain language similar to the recitation in claim 1 discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and claims 3 and 4 are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Prior Art
As noted more specifically above, the claims are indefinite such that the metes and bounds cannot be ascertained without undue conjecture and speculation as to what applicant intends to claim; as such, prior art examination of the claims is precluded. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) (Noting that art based rejection is not proper when there is considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.)
In the effort to advance prosecution, examiner has conducted a general search of prior art that may be relevant to the subject matter of the application. The prior art made of record and not relied upon can be found on the attached form PTO-892.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bulawski (US 2022/0284447 A1) discloses a system for authenticating physical products via NFC tags and recordation on a blockchain.
Toohey (US 11,367,039 B2) discloses a system for verifying items, including assigning unique IDs to items and recording ownership transfer on a blockchain.
Chen (US 2021/0264444 A1) discloses a system for providing instant authentication of a product using a distributed ledger to track each instance of a product through a supply chain.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The examiner expresses his appreciation for applicant’s specific citations to the specification indicating where applicant believes support for the claim amendments can be found. The examiner's search for support for the claim amendments was not limited to these citations.
The 101 rejection is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection due to the recitation “a distributed file server that generates the hashed identifier individually assigned to an appraisal required product based on digital goods data of the appraisal required product” is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection due to the recitation “a dedicated platform” is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection due to the recitation “recording means” is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection due to the recitation “wherein an appraisal and authentication of the appraisal required product is performed by …” is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights