DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits is in reply to the application filed on 04/26/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to application TW112143561, filed on 11/10/2023. The priority is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) paragraph:
(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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). 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). 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). 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(f) 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 limitations are: “… management device configured to…” in claim 1; “… service device configured to …” in claims 1-5, 7-8; “application service device further comprises an input interface” in claim 4; “… identity verification unit is configured to …” in claim 9; “metadata management device” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f). 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). applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-9 are directed to a system, claims 10-17 are directed to a computer implemented method, claim 18 is directed to a product.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 10, 18) is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 10, 18) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold, while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional element according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
[A] An NFT-based product cycle management method comprising:
[B] minting a plurality of part NFTs at a blockchain, wherein the part NFTs correspond to a plurality of part types and a plurality of part quantities respectively corresponding to the part types which are included in part stocking information;
[C] creating at least one product wallet, wherein each of the at least one product wallet corresponds to a corresponding one of at least one product;
[D] in accordance with the part types and the part quantities respectively corresponding to the part types of a plurality of parts included in each of the at least one product, transferring the part NFTs corresponding to each of the at least one product to a product wallet among the at least one product wallet corresponding to the at least one product; and
[E] during a return merchandise authorization (RMA) operation for a returned product among the at least one product, transferring the part NFTs in a product wallet among the at least one product wallet corresponding to the returned product from the at least one product to at least one selected from the group consisting of at least one inventory wallet, at least one scrap wallet and at least one repair wallet.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 10, 18) recites: minting items in parts ([B]); storing the product ([C]); transferring the product ([D]); storing returned product in the appropriate storage ([E]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents enabling a means of managing minted products.
This overall combination, covers agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce) because the claim language recites minting, selling, and repairing of products, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claims 10, 18) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)). For example, the added elements “blockchain,” and “NFT” computing elements at a high level of generality, which is equivalent to instructions to implement the abstract idea “by a computer” or “on a computer.” The modifiers do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea of enabling a means of managing minted products. Therefore, those modifiers do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: minting product on a blockchain ([B]). When considered individually or as an ordered combination, they amount to nothing more than reception, transmission and/or general computation of claim elements that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements of claim 1 (which is representative of claims 10, 18) do no integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 10, 18) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, when considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing the computing and additional step (limitation [B]), that is significant or meaningful to the underlying abstract idea because the identified abstract idea of managing minted products could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 10, 18 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-9, 11-17 are analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims fails to recite patent eligible subject matter for following reasons:
Claim 2, which is representative of claim 11, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein during the RMA operation, the part NFTs in the product wallet corresponding to the returned product comprise at least one non-defective part NFT corresponding to at least one non-defective part and comprise at least one defective part NFT corresponding to at least one defective part, and
[B] the application service device is configured to transfer the at least one non-defective part NFT to the at least one repair wallet or the at least one inventory wallet and transfer the at least one defective part NFT to the at least one scrap wallet.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of storing retuned product in their appropriate storage. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3, which is representative of claim 12, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein during the RMA operation, the part NFTs in the product wallet corresponding to the returned product comprise at least one non-defective part NFT corresponding to at least one non-defective part and comprise at least one defective part NFT corresponding to at least one defective part, and the application service device is configured to transfer at least one replacement part NFT which is in the at least one repair wallet and corresponds to at least one replacement part to the product wallet corresponding to the returned product, and the application service device is also configured to transfer the at least one defective part NFT to the at least one scrap wallet, wherein the at least one replacement part and the at least one defective part have identical ones of the part types and identical ones of the part quantities.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of transferring products. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4, which is representative of claim 13, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the application service device comprises an input interface so as to acquire an address of the product wallet corresponding to the returned product from the returned product, the application service device is further configured to mint the at least one replacement part NFT at the blockchain, the at least one replacement part NFT corresponds to the part type of the at least one replacement part and corresponds to the part quantity corresponding to the part type of the at least one replacement part, the application service device is further configured to transfer the at least one replacement part NFT to the at least one repair wallet, and that the application service device transfers the at least one replacement part NFT to the product wallet corresponding to the returned product indicates that the application service device transfers the at least one replacement part NFT in the at least one repair wallet to the product wallet corresponding to the address.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of transferring products. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5, which is representative of claim 14, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the application service device is configured to inquire a transaction history of one of the part NFTs in accordance with a numbering of the one of the part NFTs so as to obtain a cycle footprint of the part corresponding to the one of the part NFTs.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of recordkeeping of parts’ life cycle. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, which is representative of claim 15, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the at least one inventory wallet is configured to hold some of the part NFTs corresponding to the part stocking information.
The claim further recites the abstract idea storing specific type of item. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7, which is representative of claim 16, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the application service device is configured to sum up a greenhouse gas emission amount recorded in a metadata corresponding to each of the part NFTs in each of the at least one product wallet, the at least one inventory wallet, the at least one repair wallet, and the at least one scrap wallet.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of calculating cost for storing product in specific storage. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas as it calculates the greenhouse gas emission amount. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, which is representative of claim 17, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] a metadata management device coupled to the application service device and configured to store a metadata corresponding to each of the part NFTs, wherein the metadata records at least one selected from the group consisting of a part name, a part number, a serial number, a date, a specification, a greenhouse gas emission amount, and inventory information
The claim further recites the abstract idea of storing different information related to the product. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recites additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a). The claim further recites:
[A] wherein the application service device comprises an identity verification unit, the identity verification unit is configured to selectively authorize a plurality of users with at least one selected from a plurality of operation authorities, and the operation authorities comprise a wallet creation authority, an NFT minting authority, and an NFT transferring authority.
The claim further recites the abstract idea of authorizing user(s) to perform operations. In other words, it recites limitation grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e., a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer subject matter eligibility. Overall, the further elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance are not changing the nature of the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regenor et al (US20220351165A1), in view of Sasaki et al (US20240242171A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 18. Regenor discloses:
minting a plurality of part NFTs at a blockchain, wherein the part NFTs correspond to a plurality of part types and a plurality of part quantities respectively corresponding to the part types which are included in part stocking information; [see at least (0009) an exemplary embodiment may be directed toward providing systems and methods to leverage blockchain Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) to create a decentralized verifiable custody chain for aircraft and other complex machinery parts (reads on: minting plurality of part NFTs) consigned to a rotable pool. An exemplary embodiment of the invention allows for part provenance from initial requirements to full part lifecycle management via a blockchain enabled digital twin]
creating at least one product wallet, wherein each of the at least one product wallet corresponds to a corresponding one of at least one product; [see at least (0044) First user 12 also possesses a digital wallet or locker that includes a private cryptographic key associated solely with first user 12. This unique key (user ID) allows first user 12, through first computing device 14, to read encrypted data associated with a linked token as well as enable transfer of ownership of the NFT (reads on: wallet corresponding to NFT which is a product)]
in accordance with the part types and the part quantities respectively corresponding to the part types of a plurality of parts included in each of the at least one product, transferring the part NFTs corresponding to each of the at least one product to a product wallet among the at least one product wallet corresponding to the at least one product; and [see at least (0044) the part or serial number of the physical asset, the condition of the physical asset, and the like. First user 12 also possesses a digital wallet or locker that includes a private cryptographic key associated solely with first user 12. This unique key (user ID) allows first user 12, through first computing device 14, to read encrypted data associated with a linked token as well as enable transfer of ownership of the NFT … In one aspect of the present invention a smart contract associated with the wallet/locker may be used to automatically transfer assets and create a verifiable audit trail of every transfer. (reads on: transferring of NFTs)]
Regenor discloses minting and performing maintenance on aircraft parts, Regenor does not disclose RMA process associated with part NFTs. Sasaki discloses RMA process associated with product:
during a return merchandise authorization (RMA) operation for a returned product among the at least one product, transferring the part NFTs in a product wallet among the at least one product wallet corresponding to the returned product from the at least one product to at least one selected from the group consisting of at least one inventory wallet, at least one scrap wallet and at least one repair wallet. [see at least (0033) Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 shows a web-based universal or return management system or platform 10 for reverse logistics operations according to the present invention … (0037) The returned products next travel to an inspection station 26. How the returned products are treated at the inspection station is determined based on the market price of refurbished products. If the market price of the refurbished products is not sufficient, the returned products may be sold as is. If the inspection shows that the returned products are damaged beyond refurbishing, they are sent to scrap processing. (reads on: performing operation on product based on condition of the returned product (i.e. reselling, scrapping))]
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Regenor to include the elements of Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to efficiently sort out the return product and transfer them to their respective wallet. Regenor evidently discloses performing maintenance on aircraft part(s) and NFT associated information related to aircraft part. Sasaki is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of performing operation (i.e. reselling, scrapping) on returned product based on its condition in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both performing maintenance on aircraft part(s) and NFT associated information related to aircraft part, as well as performing operation (i.e. reselling, scrapping) on returned product based on its condition are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Regenor, as well as Sasaki would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Regenor/Sasaki.
Regarding Claims 2, 11. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses repair of part NFTs and transferring of NFTs:
wherein during the RMA operation, the part NFTs in the product wallet corresponding to the returned product comprise at least one non-defective part NFT corresponding to at least one non-defective part and comprise at least one defective part NFT corresponding to at least one defective part, and [see at least Fig. 4 (0025) system 300 allows for the implementation of strict control procedures and processes needed to manage the rotable parts between vendors 306 who assign or consign their parts to pool 304 for use in maintenance and repairs of aircraft 308, as well as to monitor and manage repairs to such rotable parts by third party repair technicians 310 (reads on: repair of product is replacement of defective part with non-defective part)]
Note: MPEP 2144.01 sets forth that it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. Here, it is reasonable to infer that a part being replaced during a repair is “defective” and therefore one of skill in the art would have understood the reference to teach the limitation.
the application service device is configured to transfer the at least one non-defective part NFT to the at least one repair wallet or the at least one inventory wallet and transfer the at least one defective part NFT to the at least one scrap wallet. [see at least (0023) present invention a smart contract associated with the wallet/locker may be used to automatically transfer assets and create a verifiable audit trail of every transfer. (reads on: transferring of NFTs)]
Regenor discloses repair and transfer of NFT product to wallet, however Regenor does not disclose replacement of product. Sasaki discloses RMA operations:
wherein during the RMA operation, the part … in the product … corresponding to the returned product comprise at least one non-defective part … corresponding to at least one non-defective part and comprise at least one defective part … corresponding to at least one defective part, and [see at least Figs. 8A, 8B (0037) If the inspection shows that the returned products are damaged beyond refurbishing, they are sent to scrap processing. For returned products that need to be refurbished, if they are considered to be defective through pre-defined appearance and functional inspection, they are moved on to a repair station 28 where the returned products are repaired/refurbished as needed.]
the application service device is configured to transfer the at least one non-defective part … to the at least one repair … or the at least one inventory wallet and transfer the at least one defective part … to the at least one scrap …. [see at least Figs. 13A, 13B (returned products that need to be refurbished, if they are considered to be defective through pre-defined appearance and functional inspection, they are moved on to a repair station 28 where the returned products are repaired/refurbished as needed. In this case, if the additional cost (cost of labor and parts) required for repair is expensive, they may be scrapped as beyond economic repair. (reads on: repairing product and the condition for scrapping product)]
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the above combination of Regenor in view of Sasaki to include additional elements of Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to efficiently track and maintain record of return product(s). Regenor, Sasaki evidently discloses maintaining, and tracking a cryptographic asset(s). Sasaki is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of performing RMA operation on product(s)in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 3, 12. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses:
wherein during the RMA operation, the part NFTs in the product wallet corresponding to the returned product comprise at least one non-defective part NFT corresponding to at least one non-defective part and comprise at least one defective part NFT corresponding to at least one defective part, and the application service device is configured to transfer at least one replacement part NFT which is in the at least one repair wallet and corresponds to at least one replacement part to the product wallet corresponding to the returned product, and the application service device is also configured to transfer the at least one defective part NFT to the at least one scrap wallet, wherein the at least one replacement part and the at least one defective part have identical ones of the part types and identical ones of the part quantities. [see at least (0008) an exemplary embodiment may be directed toward providing systems and methods to leverage blockchain Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) to create a decentralized verifiable custody chain for aircraft and other complex machinery parts (reads on: minting plurality of part NFTs) consigned to a rotable pool. An exemplary embodiment of the invention allows for part provenance from initial requirements to full part lifecycle management via a blockchain enabled digital twin. (0025) system 300 allows for the implementation of strict control procedures and processes needed to manage the rotable parts between vendors 306 who assign or consign their parts to pool 304 for use in maintenance and repairs of aircraft 308, as well as to monitor and manage repairs to such rotable parts by third party repair technicians 310. (reads on: repairing defective part with non-defective part)]
Regenor discloses minting part NFTs and performing maintenance on aircraft parts, however, Regenor does not disclose RMA operations. Sasaki discloses RMA operations:
wherein during the RMA operation, the part … in the product … corresponding to the returned product comprise at least one non-defective part … corresponding to at least one non-defective part and comprise at least one defective part … corresponding to at least one defective part, and the application service device is configured to transfer at least one replacement part … which is in the at least one repair … and corresponds to at least one replacement part to the product … corresponding to the returned product, and the application service device is also configured to transfer the at least one defective part … to the at least one scrap …, wherein the at least one replacement part and the at least one defective part have identical ones of the part types and identical ones of the part quantities. [see at least (0037) The returned products next travel to an inspection station 26. How the returned products are treated at the inspection station is determined based on the market price of refurbished products. If the market price of the refurbished products is not sufficient, the returned products may be sold as is. If the inspection shows that the returned products are damaged beyond refurbishing, they are sent to scrap processing.]
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the above combination of Regenor in view of Sasaki to include additional elements of Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to efficiently track and maintain record of return product(s). Regenor, Sasaki evidently discloses maintaining, and tracking a cryptographic asset(s). Sasaki is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of performing RMA operation on product(s)in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 4, 13. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses transferring of products:
wherein the application service device comprises an input interface so as to acquire an address of the … wallet corresponding to the … product from the … product, [see at least (0023) initiate transfer of the digital asset and its associated physical asset. Second user 22 enters personal information (i.e., a user ID and associated blockchain locker/wallet) which is then verified and validated (step 122). Upon validation, the digital (and physical) asset is transferred from first user 12 to second user 24 whereby the digital asset receives a unique, encrypted asset code with an address, a token (reads on: transferring of product)]
the application service device is further configured to mint the at least one … part NFT at the blockchain, the at least one … part NFT corresponds to the part type of the at least one … part and corresponds to the part quantity corresponding to the part type of the at least one … part, [see at least (0008) an exemplary embodiment may be directed toward providing systems and methods to leverage blockchain Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) to create a decentralized verifiable custody chain for aircraft and other complex machinery parts (reads on: minting plurality of part NFTs) consigned to a rotable pool. An exemplary embodiment of the invention allows for part provenance from initial requirements to full part lifecycle management via a blockchain enabled digital twin]
the application service device is further configured to transfer the at least one … part NFT to the at least one … wallet, and [see at least (0023) initiate transfer of the digital asset and its associated physical asset. Second user 22 enters personal information (i.e., a user ID and associated blockchain locker/wallet) which is then verified and validated (step 122). Upon validation, the digital (and physical) asset is transferred from first user 12 to second user 24 whereby the digital asset receives a unique, encrypted asset code with an address, a token (reads on: transferring of product)]
that the application service device transfers … part NFT to the … the application service device transfers the at least one replacement part NFT in the at least one repair wallet to the product wallet corresponding to the address. [see at least (0023) initiate transfer of the digital asset and its associated physical asset. Second user 22 enters personal information (i.e., a user ID and associated blockchain locker/wallet) which is then verified and validated (step 122). Upon validation, the digital (and physical) asset is transferred from first user 12 to second user 24 whereby the digital asset receives a unique, encrypted asset code with an address, a token (reads on: transferring of product)
Regenor discloses transferring of product, however, Regenor does not disclose receiving returned product. Sasaki discloses receiving returned product and perform repair operation:
wherein the application service device comprises an input interface so as to acquire an … of the product … corresponding to the returned product from the returned product, [see at least (0034) As consumers return purchased products to the return party 14, the return party 14 collects the returned purchased products, typically in a warehouse. (reads on: receiving the return item)]
the application service device is further configured to transfer the at least one replacement part … to the at least one repair … and [see at least (0037) For returned products that need to be refurbished, if they are considered to be defective through pre-defined appearance and functional inspection, they are moved on to a repair station 28 where the returned products are repaired/refurbished as needed]
that the application service device transfers the at least one replacement part … to the product …corresponding to the returned product indicates that the application service device transfers the at least one replacement part … in the at least one repair … to the product. [see at least (0037) Products that have passed the functional check and those that have completed repair are cleaned and then moved to a packing station 28 where they are packaged with the included items (reads on: product are sent after passing functional check)]
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the above combination of Regenor in view of Sasaki to include additional elements of Sasaki. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to efficiently track and maintain record of return product(s). Regenor, Sasaki evidently discloses maintaining, and tracking a cryptographic asset(s). Sasaki is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of performing RMA operation on product(s)in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 5, 14. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses:
wherein the application service device is configured to inquire a transaction history of one of the part NFTs in accordance with a numbering of the one of the part NFTs so as to obtain a cycle footprint of the part corresponding to the one of the part NFTs. [see at least Fig. 3 (0024) System 200 allows for the tool and equipment provenance from initial sign-out to use to sign-in via blockchain enabled NFTs 202. The physical tools and equipment are digitally twinned to create digital asset files to enable monitoring of the cycles and use of the tools and equipment (reads on: history of part) … vendors 206 who assign or consign their tools and equipment to locker 204 for use in maintenance and repairs of aircraft 208.]
Regarding Claims 6, 15. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses:
wherein the at least one inventory wallet is configured to hold some of the part NFTs corresponding to the part stocking information. [see at least (0020) The NFT may be generated via digital asset generator 18 and may include genomic information regarding the physical asset, such as but not limited to the location and owner of the physical asset, the part or serial number of the physical asset (reads on: part stocking information), the condition of the physical asset, and the like.]
Regarding Claims 8, 17. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses:
a metadata management device coupled to the application service device and configured to store a metadata corresponding to each of the part NFTs, wherein the metadata records at least one selected from the group consisting of a part name, a part number, a serial number, a date, a specification, a greenhouse gas emission amount, and inventory information. [see at least (0020) The NFT may be generated via digital asset generator 18 and may include genomic information regarding the physical asset, such as but not limited to the location and owner of the physical asset, the part or serial number of the physical asset, the condition of the physical asset, and the like.]
Regarding Claim 9. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 10. Regenor further discloses: wherein the application service device comprises an identity verification unit, the identity verification unit is configured to selectively authorize a plurality of users with at least one selected from a plurality of operation authorities, and the operation authorities comprise a wallet creation authority, an NFT minting authority, and an NFT transferring authority. [see at least Fig. 2 (0021) creating, maintaining and tracking a cryptographic digital asset tied to physical asset in accordance with an aspect of the present invention is shown.]
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regenor, in view of Sasaki applied to claims [6, 15], in further view of Robinette et al (US 20240097988 A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 16. Regenor, Sasaki discloses the limitations of Claims 6, 15. Regenor, Sasaki does not disclose, however, Robinette discloses:
wherein the application service device is configured to sum up a greenhouse gas emission amount recorded in a metadata corresponding to each of the part NFTs in each of the at least one product wallet, the at least one inventory wallet, the at least one repair wallet, and the at least one scrap wallet. [see at least Figs. 7, 8 (0159) the one or more IT component inventory sustainability recommendations 804, as shown in FIG. 8 … the “Lowest Lifetime Carbon Footprint” 806 sub-window has been implemented to display certain Energy Savings” 818, “CO2 Emissions” 820, “Equivalent To” 822, and recommendation detail 824 information. (reads on: carbon footprint)]
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the above combination of Regenor in view of Sasaki to include additional elements of Robinette. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to track carbon footprint. Regenor, Sasaki evidently discloses maintaining, and tracking a cryptographic asset(s). Robinette is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of calculating carbon footprint for IT component inventory in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both maintaining, and tracking a cryptographic asset(s, as well as calculating carbon footprint for IT component inventory are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Regenor, Sasaki, as well as Robinette would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Regenor, Sasaki/Robinette.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220270040 A1 Kieboom; Spencer et al. AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING RETAIL PRODUCT RETURNS AND EXCHANGES - Systems and methods that automatically process returns or exchanges. Upon receipt of product return requests, the system obtains information about the products and customers to facilitate the returns, aggregates multiple return requests and carries out optimization processing to generate optimized routes for product pickups. Logistic partners evaluate the routes for acceptance. Once accepted, a driver proceeds to a product pickup location and conducts an inspection of the products, which includes photographing the products and placing the products in special uniquely identified containers. The picked-up products are transported to a designated drop-off location, and a second inspection of the products is carried out. Upon successful inspection, retailers are informed of the inspection results and proceed to initiate a refund or product exchange. Refunds or exchanges may be initiated after the first inspection. Other features and functions are employed in various embodiments.
US 20240037618 A1 KORPMAN; DILLON JAMES SYSTEM AND PLATFORM FOR CREATING AND MANAGING FRACTIONALIZED NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS - A system and platform for dividing or fractionalizing a non-fungible token (NFT). An NFT is a unit of data stored of a digital ledger (e.g., blockchain) that certifies a digital asset to be unique and thus not interchangeable. The system provides for the creation or minting of a “PIE NFT” in a divisible format, which allows for the ability to sell, transfer, and/or purchase some or all of the NFT. A PIE NFT thus is fractionalized or divided into separate “PIE slices.” A platform is created to organize and store data (such as in a database) about one or more PIE NFTs.
US 20200210946 A1 Goodwin; Jeremiah Manufacturing Procurement Process Enabling Part Certification, Verification, Tracking, Storage, Part Tokenization, and Facilitating Audit, Traceability, Recall and Anti-Fraud Measures Using Blockchain Technology. - The manufacturing procurement process described herein allows for the entire manufacturing production process and components to be encoded onto a live distributed manufacturing network platform that combines distributed ledger technology to permit verification, tracking and storage on a specialized blockchain tailored to the protocol and standards of industrial manufacturing. This process also assigns a unique digital blockchain-based “token” that corresponds with each specific Purchase Order, Part, and End Product, and encompasses the specific details relating to that Purchase Order, Part, or End Product, including the original order specifications and production requirements. The use of cryptographically-secured blockchain technology in this process improves the efficiency and traceability of the supply chain, enhancing the audit, traceability, recall and anti-fraud capabilities of manufacturers, and saving significant costs to suppliers, buyers, and ultimately, end users.
US 20240005320 A1 PARDO; Rene MINTING, TRANSFER AND MANAGEMENT OF NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS IN SETS - A non-fungible token (NFT) system and NFT method that includes relational or