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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 03/27/2024.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 14:
“acquisition unit”. . . configured to acquire
“issuance unit”. . . configured to issue
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 5, this claim determines whether the conversion record (that from claim 4) from the real identification medium to the virtual identification data exists in the information system, and, if it does, the reissuing of claim 4 is performed. However, claim 4 indicates that the reissuing comprises transmitting the conversion record to the information system after outputting the real identification medium. Thus, claim 5 appears to only perform the reissuing if the conversion record is in the information system, but the reissuing is what transmits the record to the information system. It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the reissuing is to be triggered by the existence of the conversion record if the reissuing itself is what is responsible for the conversion record in the first place. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner herein interprets claim 5 as reciting that the outputting is performed if it is determined that the conversion record exists in the information management system for the purposes of this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 14 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 13, and 14 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 13, and 14, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
acquiring, when a supply item supplied by the trader is an unattachable item to which a real identification medium for identifying the supply item is not able to be attached, medium information of the real identification medium; and (claims 1, 13, 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could acquire medium information when a barcode or shipment tag cannot be attached to an item; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached)
issuing, based on the medium information, virtual identification data for identifying the unattachable item in place of the real identification medium. (claims 1, 13, 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could issue virtual identification data in place of a real identification medium; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but the for the requirement to implement them using generic computer components, the entirety of the steps of the method could be performed using the mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, the claims, as a whole, recite certain methods of organizing human activity since the process for generating a virtual barcode when one cannot be attached and then issuing such identification data would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
An information processing method for processing related information related to a supply chain formed of a plurality of traders, the information processing method comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
by at least one processor, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program for processing related information related to a supply chain formed of a plurality of traders, the information processing program causing at least one processor to execute: (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An information processing device for processing related information related to a supply chain formed of a plurality of traders, the information processing device comprising: (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
an acquisition unit that is configured to (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
an issuance unit that is configured to (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 13, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-12, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the issuing of the virtual identification data includes transmitting, to an information management system that is configured to manage the related information, a conversion record of recording a conversion of the real identification medium to the virtual identification data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution data output, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this comprises the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network.
Claim 3:
reissuing, when the supply item changes from the unattachable item to a normal item to which the real identification medium is able to be attached, the real identification medium instead of the virtual identification data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could reissue real identification data in place of a virtual identification medium; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 4:
wherein the reissuing of the real identification medium includes: outputting the real identification medium on which the medium information is recorded; and
transmitting, after outputting the real identification medium, a conversion record of recording a conversion from the virtual identification data to the real identification medium to an information management system that is configured to manage the related information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could output this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached. Regarding the transmission of the conversion record, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the mere addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution data output, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this comprises the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network.
Claim 5:
determining whether the conversion record from the real identification medium to the virtual identification data exists in the information management system,
wherein when the conversion record is determined to exist in the information management system, the reissuing is performed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination and perform a reissuing in accordance with a conversion record existing; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 6:
determining whether one of the real identification medium and the virtual identification data that is currently being used matches the conversion record in the information management system; and
notifying, when the one of the real identification medium and the virtual identification data is determined not to match the conversion record, that an unauthorized process has been performed.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a match is present and notify someone that an unauthorized process has been performed if there is no match; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 7:
recording, when the one of the real identification medium and the virtual identification data is determined not to match the conversion record, terminal identification information for identifying a processing terminal that is determined not to match as the related information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record this information if a match is not present; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 8:
wherein the issuing of the virtual identification data includes recording terminal identification information for identifying a processing terminal used to issue the virtual identification data as the related information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 9:
recording, when transferring the virtual identification data to the trader which is a delivery destination for the unattachable item, terminal identification information for specifying a processing terminal associated with the delivery destination as the related information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 10:
determining, when recording process information indicating details of a process performed on the unattachable item by the trader, whether terminal identification information for identifying a processing terminal that records the process information matches terminal identification information that is registered in advance in association with the virtual identification data; and
stopping, when the terminal identification information for identifying the processing terminal is determined not to match the pre-registered terminal identification information, recording the process information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a match is present and stop a process if no match is present; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 11:
recording, when the terminal identification information for identifying the processing terminal is determined not to match the pre-registered terminal identification information, the terminal identification information of the processing terminal that is determined not to match as the related information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record this information if a match is not present; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
Claim 12:
associating the virtual identification data with a non-fungible token.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could associate data with an NFT; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since this step would be performed by commercial shipment entities in tracking bulk products which cannot have codes or tags attached.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-12, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer, Randal B. (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20120054201; hereinafter "Fischer").
As per claim 1, Fischer teaches:
An information processing method for processing related information related to a supply chain formed of a plurality of traders, the information processing method comprising:
Fischer teaches a system and method for tracking objects as they move through a sequential chain. (Fischer: abstract) Fischer further teaches that the chain may comprise a supply chain of buyers and sellers. (Fischer: paragraph [0040])
by at least one processor,
Fischer teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Fischer: paragraphs [0173-177], Fig. 20)
acquiring, when a supply item supplied by the trader is an unattachable item to which a real identification medium for identifying the supply item is not able to be attached, medium information of the real identification medium; and
Fischer teaches the use of the system and method when objects are presented to which a medium in the form of a barcode or RFID tag cannot be attached. (Fischer: paragraph [0045, 114]) Fischer teaches that object data may be received (medium information of a real identification medium) for an object used in the system. (Fischer: paragraph [0157])
issuing, based on the medium information, virtual identification data for identifying the unattachable item in place of the real identification medium.
Fischer teaches that virtual identification data in the form of a docstring identifier may be issued for the product to which a barcode may not be attached. (Fischer: paragraph [0157])
As per claim 2, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the issuing of the virtual identification data includes transmitting, to an information management system that is configured to manage the related information, a conversion record of recording a conversion of the real identification medium to the virtual identification data.
Fischer teaches that virtual identification data in the form of a docstring identifier may be issued for the product to which a barcode may not be attached. (Fischer: paragraph [0157]) Fischer further teaches that the docstring identifier may be registered by transmitting information about the product to a host entity that hosts the sequential chain components. (Fischer: paragraphs [0071-72, 135-139], Fig. 15) Fischer further teaches that the system may convert information from a real identification medium (a trade document) into a virtual identification medium in the sequential chain via the docstring. (Fischer: paragraph [0118, 127-129])
As per claim 3, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
reissuing, when the supply item changes from the unattachable item to a normal item to which the real identification medium is able to be attached, the real identification medium instead of the virtual identification data.
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220])
As per claim 13, Fischer teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program for processing related information related to a supply chain formed of a plurality of traders, the information processing program causing at least one processor to execute:
Fischer teaches a system and method for tracking objects as they move through a sequential chain. (Fischer: abstract) Fischer further teaches that the chain may comprise a supply chain of buyers and sellers. (Fischer: paragraph [0040]) Fischer teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Fischer: paragraphs [0173-177], Fig. 20)
As per claim 14, Fischer teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
An information processing device for processing related information related to a supply chain formed of a plurality of traders, the information processing device comprising:
Fischer teaches a system and method for tracking objects as they move through a sequential chain. (Fischer: abstract) Fischer further teaches that the chain may comprise a supply chain of buyers and sellers. (Fischer: paragraph [0040])
an acquisition unit that is configured to
Fischer teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Fischer: paragraphs [0173-177], Fig. 20)
an issuance unit that is configured to
Fischer teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Fischer: paragraphs [0173-177], Fig. 20)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Estes et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20030208411; hereinafter "Estes").
As per claim 4, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the reissuing of the real identification medium includes: outputting the real identification medium on which the medium information is recorded; and
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220])
To be thorough, and to the extent that Fischer does not explicitly teach the outputting of the barcode, Estes teaches this element. Estes teaches that a token (a conversion record) may be passed from one entity to another, wherein the token may require verification, and, after verification, barcode information may be retrieved for the corresponding token and passed back (output) so that the barcode may be printed and affixed to an item (issued). (Estes: paragraphs [0026-28, 77-79]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fischer, or by Estes. Verification of a token prior to allowing the generation of a barcode does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fischer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Estes with the teachings of Fischer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Fischer in view of Estes further teaches:
transmitting, after outputting the real identification medium, a conversion record of recording a conversion from the virtual identification data to the real identification medium to an information management system that is configured to manage the related information.
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220]) Estes teaches that a token (a conversion record) may be passed from one entity to another, wherein the token may require verification, and, after verification, barcode information may be retrieved for the corresponding token and passed back (output) so that the barcode may be printed and affixed to an item (issued). (Estes: paragraphs [0026-28, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Estes persists.
As per claim 5, Fischer in view of Estes teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as outlined above, and further teaches:
determining whether the conversion record from the real identification medium to the virtual identification data exists in the information management system,
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220]) Estes teaches that a token (a conversion record) may be passed from one entity to another, wherein the token may require verification, and, after verification, barcode information may be retrieved for the corresponding token and passed back (output) so that the barcode may be printed and affixed to an item (issued). (Estes: paragraphs [0026-28, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Estes persists.
wherein when the conversion record is determined to exist in the information management system, the reissuing is performed.
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220]) Estes teaches that a token (a conversion record) may be passed from one entity to another, wherein the token may require verification, and, after verification, barcode information may be retrieved for the corresponding token and passed back (output) so that the barcode may be printed and affixed to an item (issued). (Estes: paragraphs [0026-28, 77-79]) The motivation to combine Estes persists.
As per claim 6, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
determining whether one of the real identification medium and the virtual identification data that is currently being used matches the conversion record in the information management system; and
Estes, however, teaches that a token (a conversion record) may be passed from one entity to another, wherein the token may require verification, and, after verification, barcode information may be retrieved for the corresponding token and passed back (output) so that the barcode may be printed and affixed to an item (issued). (Estes: paragraphs [0026-28, 77-79]) Estes further teaches that if the token cannot be validated, an error message indicating an unauthorized process (use of an incorrect token) may be issued. (Estes: paragraph [0082]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fischer, or by Estes. Verification of a token prior to allowing the generation of a barcode does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fischer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Estes with the teachings of Fischer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Fischer in view of Estes further teaches:
notifying, when the one of the real identification medium and the virtual identification data is determined not to match the conversion record, that an unauthorized process has been performed.
Estes, however, teaches that a token (a conversion record) may be passed from one entity to another, wherein the token may require verification, and, after verification, barcode information may be retrieved for the corresponding token and passed back (output) so that the barcode may be printed and affixed to an item (issued). (Estes: paragraphs [0026-28, 77-79]) Estes further teaches that if the token cannot be validated, an error message indicating an unauthorized process (use of an incorrect token) may be issued. (Estes: paragraph [0082]) The motivation to combine Estes persists.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Estes further in view of Shane, Terence Martin (U.S. Patent No. 5793972; hereinafter "Shane").
As per claim 7, Fischer in view of Estes teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
recording, when the one of the real identification medium and the virtual identification data is determined not to match the conversion record, terminal identification information for identifying a processing terminal that is determined not to match as the related information.
Shane, however, teaches that if a code is entered which is determined to not match a stored cored in an attempt to access information, the IP address of the terminal which attempted to access the information may be stored. (Shane: col. 7 lines 19-30) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fischer in view of Estes, or by Shane. Storing the terminal identification information of a device which tries and fails to access the information does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fischer in view of Estes. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Shane with the teachings of Fischer in view of Estes, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Xiong, Lalin (WIPO Document No. WO 2021237482 A1; hereinafter "Xiong").
As per claim 8, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the issuing of the virtual identification data includes recording terminal identification information for identifying a processing terminal used to issue the virtual identification data as the related information.
Fischer teaches the use of the system and method when objects are presented to which a medium in the form of a barcode or RFID tag cannot be attached. (Fischer: paragraph [0045, 114]) Fischer teaches that object data may be received (medium information of a real identification medium) for an object used in the system. (Fischer: paragraph [0157]) Fischer, however, does not appear to teach the further uploading of a device ID with this information.
Xiong, however, teaches that information read off of a tag and uploaded to a server may comprise the device identifier of the device which read the tag. (Xiong: paragraph [0011]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fischer or by Xiong. Adding the device ID to the uploaded information does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fischer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Xiong with the teachings of Fischer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Putterman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20120023555; hereinafter "Putterman").
As per claim 9, Fischer in view of Estes teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
recording, when transferring the virtual identification data to the trader which is a delivery destination for the unattachable item, terminal identification information for specifying a processing terminal associated with the delivery destination as the related information.
Putterman, however, teaches that device identifiers which are allowed to access data may be stored and used for later allowing or disallowing access, wherein the device may comprise a device of a user at a delivery destination. (Putterman: paragraphs [0058, 67]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fischer, or by Putterman. Storing a device ID of a device at a delivery destination which is allowed to access certain data does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fischer. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Putterman with the teachings of Fischer, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Peckover, Douglas (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20130097085; hereinafter "Peckover").
As per claim 10, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
determining, when recording process information indicating details of a process performed on the unattachable item by the trader, whether terminal identification information for identifying a processing terminal that records the process information matches terminal identification information that is registered in advance in association with the virtual identification data; and
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220]) Fischer, however, does not appear to teach checking terminal identification information in issuing and printing the barcode.
Peckover, however, teaches that prior to allowing printing of information, a check of the device ID may be made in order to determine that the device is authorized to print the information, wherein authorization may be given if the identifier is proper, and an alarm condition may be activated if verification fails. (Peckover: paragraphs [0328-335]) Peckover teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Fischer for the benefit of providing an apparatus for electronically storing globally unique serial numbers in a way that protects individual products and services so that they can be protected, monitored, controlled, paid for, or even destroyed, as determined by the primary manufacturer or owner. (Peckover: paragraph [0030]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peckover with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Fischer in view of Peckover further teaches:
stopping, when the terminal identification information for identifying the processing terminal is determined not to match the pre-registered terminal identification information, recording the process information.
Fischer teaches that a user may later scan a barcode for a product which has been made from the item in order to discover information about the item, and therefore teaches that a real identification medium for the item may be reissued. (Fisher: paragraph [0195, 220]) Peckover, as outlined above, teaches that prior to allowing printing of information, a check of the device ID may be made in order to determine that the device is authorized to print the information, wherein authorization may be given if the identifier is proper, and an alarm condition may be activated if verification fails. (Peckover: paragraphs [0328-335]) The motivation to combine Peckover persists.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Peckover further in view of Shane.
As per claim 11, Fischer in view of Peckover teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
recording, when the terminal identification information for identifying the processing terminal is determined not to match the pre-registered terminal identification information, the terminal identification information of the processing terminal that is determined not to match as the related information.
Shane, however, teaches that if a code is entered which is determined to not match a stored cored in an attempt to access information, the IP address of the terminal which attempted to access the information may be stored. (Shane: col. 7 lines 19-30) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Fischer in view of Peckover, or by Shane. Storing the terminal identification information of a device which tries and fails to access the information does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Fischer in view of Peckover. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Shane with the teachings of Fischer in view of Peckover, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Williams et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20240020624; hereinafter "Williams").
As per claim 12, Fischer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
associating the virtual identification data with a non-fungible token.
Williams, however, teaches that shipment data scanned off of a barcode of a shipment item may be associated with an NFT. (Williams: paragraphs [0086-87, 90], Fig. 10) Williams teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Fischer for the benefit of solving problems such as providing a description without tracking information of shipment items, a lack of robustness in shipment tracking, and systems not allowing distinguishing between ownership and possession of an item. (Williams: paragraph [0003-4]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Williams with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628