DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 3/4/2024.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Priority
CONTINUATION
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 16/616047 filed on September 12, 2009, now U.S. Patent US11946870B2 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of Patent US11946870B2 (Distributed ledger for physical material). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and fully encompasses the species claimed in claim 1 of Patent US11946870B2, in which they have common limitations and the same inventive entity. The narrower scope of claim 1 of the Patent US11946870B2 anticipates the broader scope of claim 1 of the instant application because a species always anticipates a genus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove or add the additional limitations in the patents/co-pending applications above to result in the instant claims.
Claim 1 of the Instant application
Claim 1 of Patent No. US11946870B2
obtaining, at a computer coupled with a communication network, a first set of information regarding a physical material to be verified, the first set of information comprising hundreds of values for channels of a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the physical material in response to an irradiation of the physical material, the hundreds of values representing physical characteristics of the physical material to be verified;
obtaining, at a computer coupled with a communication network, a first set of information regarding a diamond material to be verified, the first set of information comprising hundreds of values for channels of a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the diamond material in response to an irradiation of the diamond material by electromagnetic radiation having sufficient energy to convert a portion of the diamond material into a plasma, wherein the irradiation of the diamond material has been performed by a scanner that has been calibrated (i) for wavelength measurements using a light source with distinct spectral lines and (ii) for intensity measurements using a deuterium-tungsten light source, the hundreds of values representing physical characteristics of the diamond material to be verified;
obtaining, at the computer coupled with the communication network, a second set of information regarding the physical material to be verified;
obtaining, at the computer coupled with the communication network, a second set of information regarding the diamond material to be verified;
sending, by the computer, the first and second sets of information over the communication network to a verification computer system;
sending, by the computer, the first and second sets of information over the communication network to a verification computer system;
receiving, at the computer, verification information from the verification computer system, the verification information comprising a digital signature by the verification computer system of at least information usable to identify the first set of information;
receiving, at the computer, verification information from the verification computer system, the verification information comprising a digital signature by the verification computer system of at least information usable to identify the first set of information, the digital signature having been generated by encrypting the at least information usable to identify the first set of information using a private key portion of an asynchronous encryption key pair used by the verification computer system;
initiating, by the computer, addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to a distributed digital ledger;
initiating, by the computer, addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to a distributed digital ledger;
receiving, by the computer, confirmation of the addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to the distributed digital ledger; and
receiving, by the computer, confirmation of the addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to the distributed digital ledger; and
reporting, by the computer, that the physical material has been verified responsive to receipt of the confirmation.
reporting, by the computer, that the diamond material has been verified responsive to receipt of the confirmation.
Objection
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over McManus et al. (US20140268133A1) in view of Fuller et al. (US20180276597A1).
With respect to claim 1, 17, and 19
McManus teaches the limitations:
obtaining, at a computer coupled with a communication network, a first set of information regarding a physical material to be verified ([0058], In general, the samples that can be analyzed by the methods disclosed herein can include any suitable materials, such as a geological material (e.g., minerals, gemstones, rocks, meteorites, or metals), a manufactured material (e.g., machined metal parts, cast metal parts, or pharmaceuticals), or a biological material (e.g., pathogens, bacteria, viruses, foods, or woods), the first set of information comprising hundreds of values for channels of a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the physical material in response to an irradiation of the physical material ([0061] describes “electromagnetic radiation”; see also [0062, 0063, 0065]; see also [0067], in some embodiments, suitable spectral resolution can be at least 10,000 channels (e.g., at least 20,000 channels, at least 30,000 channels,…), the hundreds of values representing physical characteristics of the physical material to be verified (see Fig. 1 Item (c); [0067] describes outlining channels which are values; [0084] describes finding, for example, “petrogenic signature”)
obtaining, at the computer coupled with the communication network, a second set of information regarding the physical material to be verified ([0075] describes contextual information such as GPS, time, name, zone, color, etc which can be interpreted as second set of information; [0067] describes finding sample is irradiated… multiple times (e.g., at least 60 times) in step (a));
sending, by the computer, the first and second sets of information over the communication network to a verification computer system (fig. 4 Item 40 and [0067 and 0086-0087] describe without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that by irradiating a sample at multiple locations and multiple times at each of these multiple locations and then collecting the spectra produced by these irradiations, one can capture a more complete picture of the above variations, which are characteristic of the place of origin of a sample. Thus, by using the methods disclosed herein, one can determine the place of origin of a sample more accurately (e.g., pinpointing the particular deposit or mine from which the sample is obtained).)
McManus doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Fuller teaches:
receiving, at the computer, verification information from the verification computer system ([0071], Validation of a blockchain that can be generated as described herein can be validated in various ways. For instance, on-the-spot verification, e.g., verification of transaction information by the validation component 320 and/or mining component 330 at the time of the underlying transaction, can be used to validate a transaction in substantially real time before adding a block to the blockchain.), the verification information comprising a digital signature by the verification computer system of at least information usable to identify the first set of information ([0091], At 814, spectral signature data provided by the spectral scanning device 712 can be verified (e.g., by the validation component 320 and/or authentication component 730), e.g., by matching the provided spectral signature data to a valid spectral identifier and/or an error set.);
initiating, by the computer, addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to a distributed digital ledger ([0072], In an aspect, transactions along the supply chain can be incorporated as standard blocks in a blockchain by the mining component 330. Respective generated blocks can include validated spectral signature data. For instance, a transaction record can contain an encrypted version of a spectral signature, e.g., a near infrared (NIR) signature, as measured by a device associated with the sender as well as NIR signature(s) as measured by a device associated with the receiver. Spectral signature data, such as NIR signatures or the like, can be incorporated into a block and/or other set of transaction information in various ways.);
receiving, by the computer, confirmation of the addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to the distributed digital ledger ([0093], The validator component can then separately validate the spectral signatures at 908. At 910, a settlement status of the transaction can be broadcast, e.g., to the miner component 924 and/or other entities.); and
reporting, by the computer, that the physical material has been verified responsive to receipt of the confirmation ([0093], At 910, a settlement status of the transaction can be broadcast, e.g., to the miner component 924 and/or other entities.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fuller with the teaching of McManus as they relate to provenance of material identification system. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the physical material identification system of in McManus to include a supply chain management system implemented on a blockchain as taught by Fuller for the predicated result of an improved supply chain assurance and identification system.
With respect to claim 2
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 1. McHUGH further teaches: wherein the information usable to identify the first set of information is the first set of information ([0073], After the sequence of spectra for a sample is obtained, step (c) can be performed by comparing the sequence with a sequence of spectra for each of multiple reference samples in a reference library. In general, to determine the place of origin of an unknown sample, the place of origin of each reference sample in the library is known.)
With respect to claim 3
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. McHUGH further teaches: wherein the hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation comprises at least forty thousand channels of data from the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (see at least [0067])
With respect to claim 4
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. McHUGH further teaches: wherein the hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation comprises at least three hundred channels of data from the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (see at least [0067])
With respect to claim 5
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. McHUGH further teaches:
wherein the hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation are indicative of isotopic emissions, molecular emissions, molecular structure, molecular isotopic emissions, spectral interference between atomic emissions from different atoms in the physical material, or a combination thereof (see at least [0063]).
With respect to claim 6
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. McHUGH further teaches: wherein the computer is part of an analysis system (see at least [0073]; Fig.3 item (c) and (d))
obtaining the first set of information comprises irradiating the physical material, receiving the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation responsive to the irradiating (see [0065-0067 and 0076), and generating the hundreds of values from the received spectrum of electromagnetic radiation ([0091], At 814, spectral signature data provided by the spectral scanning device 712 can be verified (e.g., by the validation component 320 and/or authentication component 730), e.g., by matching the provided spectral signature data to a valid spectral identifier and/or an error set.);
(Fig. 1 Item (c) and [0067 and 0084]);
(a) previously produced hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the physical material in response to a previous irradiation of the physical material (see [0065-0067]) and (b) a second digital signature of at least the previously produced hundreds of values (see at least [0084]),
sending the first and second sets of information comprises sending the generated hundreds of values and the previously produced hundreds of values to the verification computer system (see Fig. 4 Items 40 and 50; see at least [0086-0087])
Fuller further teaches: wherein the digital signature is a first digital signature (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087]);
obtaining the second set of information comprises retrieving from the distributed digital ledger (Figs. 7 Item 330, Fig. 9 Items 908, 910 and see [0093].);
verifying the second digital signature using a public key portion of an asynchronous encryption key pair used by the verification computer system (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087])
With respect to claim 11
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. McHUGH further teaches: wherein obtaining the first set of information comprises receiving the hundreds of values (Fig. 1 Item (C) and [0067 and 0084]), wherein sending the first and second sets of information comprises sending the hundreds of values (Fig. 1 Item (C) and [0067 and 0084]) and the current set of criteria for the physical material at the current location in the supply chain (see [0058]), and wherein the method further comprises:
…. (a) previously produced hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the physical material in response to a previous irradiation of the physical material at a previous location in the supply chain (Fig. 1 Item (C) and [0067 and 0084]),and (b) a second digital signature of at least the previously produced hundreds of values (0084 “petrogenetic signature”, 0130 (same); see also 0062 (“sequences” as “petrogenetic signature”),
Fuller further teaches:
wherein the computer is part of a tracking system (Fig.4 Item 410; Figs. 13 and 14; [0067-0069]), wherein the digital signature is a first digital signature ([0087]),…wherein obtaining the second set of information comprises identifying a current set of criteria for the physical material at a current location in a supply chain (Fig.4 Item 410; Figs. 13 and 14; [0067-0069]),
verifying the first digital signature using a public key portion of an asynchronous encryption key pair used by the verification computer system (Figs 1, 7, and 9; [0072, 0087, 0088]);
(b)….the second digital signature having been created to verify the physical material at the previous location in the supply chain (Fig. 4 Item 410, Fig. 13 (showing new versus aged material), Fig. 14 (same); 0067-0069);
retrieving from the distributed digital ledger…at a previous location in the supply chain (Fig. 4 Item 410, Fig. 13 (showing new versus aged material), Fig. 14 (same); 0067-0069) and (b) a second digital signature of (Fig. 1 Item “SPECTRAL SIGNATURE DATA”, Fig. 7 Item “SPECTRAL SIGNATURE DATA”, Fig. 9 (showing encrypted data between validator and A/B); 0072 (“NIR signatures or the like, can be incorporated…in various ways”, 0087 (“encryption keys”)) (Examiner’s emphasis)) to a distributed digital ledger (0072 (“signatures…can be incorporated into a block [of the blockchain]”), 0088 (“spectral signature data…combined encrypted signature”)); Claims 15, 20; see also 0007 (explaining at high level encryption with spectral), 0075 (consensus), 0086 (same), 0090 (same))… the second digital signature having (Fig. 1 Item “SPECTRAL SIGNATURE DATA”, Fig. 7 Item “SPECTRAL SIGNATURE DATA”, Fig. 9 (showing encrypted data between validator and A/B); 0072 (“NIR signatures or the like, can be incorporated…in various ways”, 0087 (“encryption keys”)) (Examiner’s emphasis)) to a distributed digital ledger (0072 (“signatures…can be incorporated into a block [of the blockchain]”), 0088 (“spectral signature data…combined encrypted signature”)); Claims 15, 20; see also 0007 (explaining at high level encryption with spectral), 0075 (consensus), 0086 (same), 0090 (same));
at the previous location in the supply chain (Fig. 4 Item 410, Fig. 13 (showing new versus aged material), Fig. 14 (same); 0067-0069);
verifying the second digital signature using the public key portion of the asynchronous encryption key pair used by the verification computer system; (0087 (“using a key known…can decrypt and facilitate verification of the signature”) (Examiner’s emphasis.))
initiating the addition to the distributed digital ledger only after verification of both the first digital signature and the second digital signature (0087 “N encryption keys…using M of N keys, where M is less than or equal to N.”).
With respect to claim 12
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 11. Fuller further teaches:
wherein the physical material at the previous location in the supply chain… and the physical material at the current location in the supply chain is combined with at least one other physical material (Fig. 4 Item 410, Fig. 13, and Fig. 14; [0067-0069])
McHUGH further teaches:
…is an uncombined raw material….(see [0015])
With respect to claim 13
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 1. McHUGH further teaches:
wherein the information usable to identify the first set of information is a first pointer (Fig. 3 Items (c) and (d); 0073 (library)) to a first entry comprising the hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 1 Item (c); [0061, 0067 and 0084])
With respect to claim 14
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 13. McHUGH further teaches:
obtaining the second set of information regarding the physical material to be verified (Fig.1 Item (C); [0067 and 0084]);
Fuller further teaches:
wherein: a private material information database comprises the first entry comprising the first set of information (Fig. 3 Item 340; [0065 and 0066])
obtaining, from the distributed digital ledger, the second set of information comprising a second pointer to a second entry of the private material information database regarding to the physical material to be verified (Fig. 8 Items 814, 824; 0091);
the digital signature of the information usable to identify the first set of information comprises a digital signature of a (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; [0072]) first pointer to the first entry material information database; and (Fig. 1, 7, and 9); [0072 and 0087])
initiating addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to the distributed digital ledger comprises initiating addition of the first pointer to the distributed ledger (see [0072, 0075, 0085, 0088, 0086 and 0090])
With respect to claim 15
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 14. Fuller further teaches: wherein the private material information database is a private distributed digital ledger (Fig. 3 Item 340; [0065 and 0066])
With respect to claim 16
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 1. Fuller further teaches:
wherein the information usable to identify the first set of information is a hash of the first set of information (see [0073, 0075, and 0078])
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over McManus et al. (US20140268133A1) in view of Fuller et al. (US20180276597A1), and further in view of Ortiz et al. (US20210117962A1).
With respect to claim 7
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 6. Fuller further teaches:
verifying the first digital signature using the public key portion of the asynchronous encryption key pair (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087]);
………….in addition to the verification of the first digital signature (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087]);
initiating payment for the transfer responsive to the checking (Fig. 7 Item 330, Fig. 9 Items 908, 910; see at least [0093]).
McHUGH further teaches:……(Fig. 4 Items 40 and 50; see also [0086-0087].)
The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Ortiz teaches:
checking that one or more conditions of a transfer are met ([0070], These electronic instructions may be extracted, for example, based on spending behavior, transaction details, promotions, etc. For example, transactions may be provided in encoded formats whereby the system may extract details relating to qualifying spend and/or other activities and rewards provisioning logical conditions and operators may be utilized to either generate corresponding new virtual tokens on the distributed ledger or facilitate a transfer or otherwise cause a transaction to be posted on the distributed ledger.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fuller/McManus with the teaching of Ortiz as they relate to provenance of material identification system. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Fuller/McManus, for example, the supply chain management system implemented on a blockchain in Fuller, to include checking terms and conditions of a transfer for the predicated result of an improved supply chain assurance and identification system.
With respect to claim 8
The combination of McHUGH, Fuller, and Ortiz teaches the limitations of claim 7. Ortiz further teaches: comprising identifying the one or more conditions of the transfer from a record in the distributed digital ledger associated with the second set of information ([0070], These electronic instructions may be extracted, for example, based on spending behavior, transaction details, promotions, etc. For example, transactions may be provided in encoded formats whereby the system may extract details relating to qualifying spend and/or other activities and rewards provisioning logical conditions and operators may be utilized to either generate corresponding new virtual tokens on the distributed ledger or facilitate a transfer or otherwise cause a transaction to be posted on the distributed ledger.), and wherein initiating payment for the transfer comprises initiating the addition to the distributed digital ledger ([0236], When receiving propagated payloads from nodes in direct communication with a particular node, the interface layer of each node is configured to (i) extract transaction information for addition to the distributed ledger corresponding to the node computing device where the propagation consensus mechanisms are satisfied, and (ii) extract the rule modifications authorized against the rule modification authorization keys for addition to the processing rule ledger corresponding to the node.)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over McManus et al. (US20140268133A1) in view of Fuller et al. (US20180276597A1), and further in view of Hodges (US20190147397A1).
With respect to claim 9
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Hodges teaches: wherein the distributed digital ledger comprises a public distributed digital ledger and a private distributed digital ledger (see [0017] “public data” versus “private data” with permissions; see also [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fuller/ McManus with the teaching of Hodges as they relate to provenance of material identification system. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Fuller/ McManus, i.e., a supply chain management system implemented on a blockchain in Fuller, to include adding permissions as taught by Hodges for the predicated result of reducing the risk of data breaches and potential for data manipulation.
McHUGH further teaches:
…comprising a first entry comprising the hundreds of values for channels of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (see [0061 and 0067] and Fig. 1 Item (a));
obtaining the second set of information regarding the physical material to be verified (see [0067] and alternatively or jointly, holding MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) “Obvious to duplicate” and holding MPEP 2143(I)(E) “obvious to try)).. regarding the physical material to be verified (Fig. 3 Items (c) and (d) and [0073]);
… usable to identify the first set of information comprises a digital signature (see [0084, 0130, and 0062])
McHUGH does not teach, but Fuller further teaches:
comprises obtaining, from the public distributed digital ledger, the second set of information comprising a second pointer to a second entry of the private distributed digital ledger
the digital signature of the information usable (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087])
initiating addition of the information usable to identify the first set of information and the digital signature to the distributed digital ledger comprises initiating addition of the first pointer to the public distributed digital ledger (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087]).
With respect to claim 10
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller teaches the limitations of claim 2. Fuller further teaches:
wherein: the distributed digital ledger comprises a (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087]); and
the first set of information is stored in the private portion of the distributed digital ledger, and the digital signature is stored in the public portion of the distributed digital ledger (Figs. 1, 7, and 9; see also [0072 and 0087]).
The combination of McHUGH and Fuller doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Hodges teaches:
A public data and a private data ([0017] “public data” versus “private data” with permissions; see also [0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Fuller/ McManus with the teaching of Hodges as they relate to provenance of material identification system. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Fuller/ McManus, i.e., a supply chain management system implemented on a blockchain in Fuller, to include adding permissions as taught by Hodges for the predicated result of reducing the risk of data breaches and potential for data manipulation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 3/4/2026
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699