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 .
Claim Status
Claims 16-30 are pending and examined. Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 6/29/2024 and 7/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17, 20, and 25-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, Ln. 5 recites, “process(s)”, which is grammatically incorrect, and should read, “process(es)” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 16, 4th to Last Ln., Claim 20 Ln. 3, Claim 25 Ln. 4, Claim 25 Ln. 5, Claim 25 3rd to Last Ln., Claim 26 Ln. 3, Claim 28 Ln. 4, and Claim 28 Ln. 8 similarly recite “process(s)”, and are similarly objected to.
Regarding claim 17, 2nd to Last Ln. recites “Coalescent”, where the “C” should be lower case to be grammatically correct.
Claim 27 2nd to Last Ln. similarly recites “Coalescent”, and is similarly objected to.
Claim 26 Last Ln. contains a space between the word “additive” and the following comma. This space should be deleted to be grammatically correct.
Claim 28 Ln. 1 contains a space between the word “additive” and the following comma. This space should be deleted to be grammatically correct.
Claim 28 Ln. 8 contains a space between the word “additive” and the following semicolon. This space should be deleted to be grammatically correct.
Claim 28 3rd to Last Ln. contains a space between the word “additive” and the following comma. This space should be deleted to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, 2nd to Last Ln.-Last Ln. recite, “each produced formulation additive”. However, the claim previously recites only a single formulation additive. Therefore, it is unclear what each produced formulation additive is in reference to. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “the produced formulation additive”.
Claims 17-30 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the formulation additive passport" in Lns. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 17, the phrase "more particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 17, Ln. 4 recites, “activators (accelerants)”. It is unclear if this is intended to recite all activators, all accelerants, only activators that are accelerants, all activators and accelerants, or something else. Further clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 22, Last Ln. recites, “the chemical production network(s)”. However, claim 16, which claim 22 depends on, recites only a single chemical production network. Therefore, it is unclear what the chemical production networks would be in reference to. Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “the chemical production network”.
Regarding claim 26, Lns. 3-4 recite, “the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the formulation additive”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “one or more input material(s) and/or one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the formulation additive”.
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 16-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claim 16 is directed toward a system, which is a statutory category. Claim 25 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category. Claim 28 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category. Claim 29 is drawn to a digital asset, which is software per se, which is not a statutory category. Claim 30 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites generating a digital asset by providing a decentral identifier associated with a produced formulation additive and one or more environmental attribute(s) of one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(es) used to produce the formulation additive, and linking the decentral identifier and the environmental attribute(s). [0095]-[0097] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant Application, US Pub. No. 20205/0232378 to Grumbrecht et al. (hereinafter Grumbrecht) states that the decentral identifier can be a unique identifier, i.e. a unique ID, and the digital asset can be a digital representation of formulation additive data. Generating formulation data by an ID of a formulation additive and linking the ID and an environmental attribute, as generally claimed, are processes that can be performed in the human mind, and are mental process-type abstract ideas.
Claims 25 and 28 similarly recite generating a digital asset by providing a decentral identifier associated with a produced formulation additive and one or more environmental attribute(s) of one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(es) used to produce the formulation additive, and linking the decentral identifier and the environmental attribute(s), and is similarly a mental process-type abstract idea.
Claim 30 recites deriving a digital asset associated with a product from a formulation additive digital asset. The act of associating a property of a formulation additive with a product that utilizes the formulation additive is a process that can be performed in the human mind, and is a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of:
“ a chemical production network configured to produce the formulation additive,”
“a chemical production network or system configured to provide each produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset.”
And a “production operating apparatus.”
These elements are recited as part of a generic chemical production plant, and merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additionally recited elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claimed “production operating apparatus”, which generates the digital asset, merely performs data-gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 25 and 28 similarly recite a chemical production network, which merely links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 30 similarly recites producing a product from the formulation additive, which merely associates the abstract idea with a particular technological environment of chemical production. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
As previously stated in Step 2A Prong Two, Claims 16, 25, 28, and 30 recite “a chemical production network configured to produce the formulation additive,” “a chemical production network or system configured to provide each produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset”, a “production operating apparatus”, and producing a product from the formulation additive. These elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art and are therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Further, with regards to the generically recited chemical production network configured to produce the formulation additive, chemical production network or system configured to provide each produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset, production operating apparatus, and producing a product from a formulation additive, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above element is well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Wollack et al. (WO Pub. No. 2020/252013; hereinafter Wollack; already of record on the IDS received 6/29/2024) teaches a chemical production network configured to produce a formulation additive ([0045]-[0052], a polymer produced in block 302 may be processed into extruded resin or another intermediate product, and an intermediate resin is used to create a product, [0074], see Fig. 2 at blocks 206 and 210), a chemical production network or system configured to provide each produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2 at block 208, where information associating the resins with the polymer and associated carbon credits is recorded in a blockchain), a production operating apparatus ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2), and producing a product from a formulation additive ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Slivensky et al. (US Pub. NO. 2022/0220389; hereinafter Slivensky; already of record on the IDS received 7/16/2024) teaches a chemical production network configured to produce a formulation additive ([0064], a Recycle PIA can be an intermediate, [0131], [0139]-[0144]), a chemical production network or system configured to provide each produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset ([0064], [0131], [0139]-[0144], an electronic identifier can be associated with the Recycle PIA, associated with the sale of the Recycle PIA to a customer), a production operating apparatus ([0064], [0131], [0139]-[0144]), and producing a product from a formulation additive ([0064], [0131], [0139]-[0144]).
Claim 17 recites the specifics of what the formulation additive is, and merely associates the judicial exception with the claimed types of formulation additives.
Claims 18-20 and 22-24 recite further specifics about what information is included in the digital identifier and how the data is obtained, and further define the mental process-type abstract idea.
Claim 21 further defines the production operating apparatus, and how it gathers data, and is therefore drawn to data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 19-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wollack.
Regarding claim 16, Wollack discloses a system for producing a formulation additive associated with a digital asset ([0045]-[0052], a polymer produced in block 302 may be processed into extruded resin or another intermediate product, and an intermediate resin is used to create a product, [0074], see Fig. 2 at blocks 206 and 210, and block 208, where information associating the resins with the polymer and associated carbon credits is recorded in a blockchain). The system comprises:
- a chemical production network configured to produce the formulation additive wherein the formulation additive is produced from one or more input material(s) through one or more chemical process(es) of the chemical production network, wherein the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(es) are associated with environmental attribute(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2 at block 204, where identifying information and carbon credit information associated with a polymer is recorded in a blockchain).
- a production operating apparatus configured to generate the digital asset by
providing a decentral identifier associated with the produced formulation additive and one or more environmental attribute(s) of the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 208).
linking the decentral identifier and the environmental attribute(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 208).
- a chemical production network or system configured to provide each produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) associated with the formulation additive are provided from at least one balancing account configured to store environmental attribute(s) associated with input material(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) are associated with at least one property related to the environmental impact of the one or more input material(s) and/or the chemical process(es) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the production operating apparatus is configured to gather environmental attributes associated with the produced formulation additive before, during and/or after production of the formulation additive by the chemical production network ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the formulation additive produced through chemical processes from one or more input material(s) provided to the chemical production network include the environmental attribute(s) associated with the input material(s), the chemical process(es) and/or the chemical production network(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with input material(s) are provided before, during and/or after production of the formulation additive by the chemical production network, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with input material(s) are allocated to at least one balancing account before, during and/or after production of the formulation additive by the chemical production network ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the produced formulation additive relate to environmental properties generated from process data associated with the chemical processing of the input material(s) and/or energy data associated with the energy consumption of the chemical processing, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the produced formulation additive are generated before, during and/or after production of the formulation additive by the chemical production network ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 25, Wollack discloses a method for producing a formulation additive associated with a digital asset ([0045]-[0052], a polymer produced in block 302 may be processed into extruded resin or another intermediate product, and an intermediate resin is used to create a product, [0074], see Fig. 2 at blocks 206 and 210, and block 208, where information associating the resins with the polymer and associated carbon credits is recorded in a blockchain). The method comprises:
- producing the formulation additive from one or more input material(s) through one or more chemical process(s) of a chemical production network, wherein the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(s) are associated with environmental attribute(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2 at block 204, where identifying information and carbon credit information associated with a polymer is recorded in a blockchain).
- generating the digital asset by
providing a decentral identifier associated with the produced formulation additive and one or more environmental attribute(s) associated with the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(es) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 208).
linking the decentral identifier and the one or more environmental attribute(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 208).
- providing the produced formulation additive in association with the digital asset ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Wollack discloses a formulation additive associated with a digital asset including a decentral identifier associated with the formulation additive and linked to one or more environmental attribute(s) of the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the formulation additive ([0045]-[0052], a polymer produced in block 302 may be processed into extruded resin or another intermediate product, and an intermediate resin is used to create a product, [0074], see Fig. 2 at blocks 206 and 210, and block 208, where information associating the resins with the polymer and associated carbon credits is recorded in a blockchain).
Regarding claim 28, Wollack discloses a method for generating a digital asset associated with a formulation additive, wherein the formulation additive is produced from one or more input material(s) through one or more chemical process(s) of a chemical production network, wherein the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(es) are associated with environmental attribute(s) ([0045]-[0052], a polymer produced in block 302 may be processed into extruded resin or another intermediate product, and an intermediate resin is used to create a product, [0074], see Fig. 2 at block 204, where identifying information and carbon credit information associated with a polymer is recorded in a blockchain, blocks 206 and 210, and block 208, where information associating the resins with the polymer and associated carbon credits is recorded in a blockchain). The method comprises:
- providing a decentral identifier associated with the produced formulation additive and one or more environmental attribute(s) of the one or more input material(s) and/or the one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the formulation additive ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 208).
- linking the decentral identifier and the environmental attribute(s) ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 208).
- providing the digital asset in association with the produced formulation additive, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the formulation additive is made accessible to a user of the formulation additive through the digital asset ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, [0059]).
Regarding claim 29, Wollack discloses the method of claim 28. Wollack further discloses a digital asset as generated according to the method of claim 28 ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, [0059]).
Regarding claim 30, Wollack discloses the formulation additive of claim 26. Wollack further discloses a method comprising using the formulation additive of claim 26 associated with the digital asset for producing a product from the formulation additive and deriving a digital asset associated with the product from the formulation additive digital asset ([0045]-[0052], see Fig. 2, particularly at step 212).
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 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollack as applied to claim 16, 19-26, and 28-30 above, and further in view of Predale et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0246397; hereinafter Predale).
Regarding claim 17, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16.
Wollack fails to explicitly disclose that the formulation additive associated with the formulation additive passport or digital asset is selected from the group consisting of stabilizers, UV stabilizers such as UV absorbers and suitable free-radical scavengers (more particularly HALS compounds - hindered amine light stabilizers), activators (accelerants), driers, extenders, pigments, dyes, antistatic agents, flame retardants, thickeners, thixotropic agents, surface-active agents, viscosity modifiers, plasticizers or chelating agents, wetting agents, dispersion agents, emulsifier, defoaming agent, film forming agent/coalescent, agents to reduce minimum film formation temperature, open time prolonger and slipping agents.
Predale is in the analogous field of improving the environmental impact of formulated products (Predale [0028]), and teaches thickeners and emulsifiers as formulation additives (Predale [0028]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Wollack with the teachings of Predale so that the formulation additive is one of the claimed formulation additives, in order to ensure that products that include these additives have reduced environmental impact (Predale [0028]).
Regarding claim 27, Wollack discloses the formulation additive of claim 26.
Wollack fails to explicitly disclose that the formulation additive is selected from the group consisting of stabilizers, UV stabilizers, activators, driers, extenders, pigments, dyes, antistatic agents, flame retardants, thickeners, thixotropic agents, surface-active agents, viscosity modifiers, plasticizers or chelating agents, wetting agents, dispersion agents, emulsifier, defoaming agent, film forming agent/coalescent, agents to reduce minimum film formation temperature, open time prolonger and slipping agents.
Predale is in the analogous field of improving the environmental impact of formulated products (Predale [0028]), and teaches thickeners and emulsifiers as formulation additives (Predale [0028]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Wollack with the teachings of Predale so that the formulation additive is one of the claimed formulation additives, in order to ensure that products that include these additives have reduced environmental impact (Predale [0028]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollack as applied to claims 16, 19-26, and 28-30 above, and further in view of Slivensky.
Regarding claim 18, Wollack discloses the system of claim 16.
Wollack fails to explicitly disclose that the digital asset of the formulation additive includes information of impurities related to the input material(s).
Slivensky is in the analogous field of tracking recycle content of a product (Slivensky; [0064], [0131], [0139]-[0144]), and teaches tracking impurities related to input materials (Slivensky [0435]-[0436]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Wollack with the teachings of Slivensky so that the digital asset of the formulation additive includes information of impurities related to the input material(s), in order to ensure that the impurity concentration does not exceed a desired level during production of the formulation additive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,718,304 in view of Predale.
Claims 16-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/721,933 in view of Predale, claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/721,636 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/719,303 in view of Predale, claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/720,099 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/719,915 in view of Predale, claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/717,698 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/720,700 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/719,858 in view of Predale, claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/723,292 in view of Predale, claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/721,512 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/720,704 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/719,290 in view of Predale, claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/720,729 in view of Predale, claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/711,805 in view of Predale, claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/722,572 in view of Predale, and claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/474,877 in view of Predale.
Independent claims 16, 25-26, and 28 are substantially disclosed in the listed claims in the above mentioned issued patent and patent applications. However, the listed claims in the above mentioned issued patent and patent applications are silent on the digital asset being associated with a formulation additive.
Predale is in the analogous field of improving the environmental impact of formulated products (Predale [0028]), and formulation additives (Predale [0028]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the subject matter disclosed in the above mentioned issued patent and patent applications system of Wollack with the teachings of Predale so that the digital asset is associated with a formulation additive, in order to ensure that products that include these additives have reduced environmental impact (Predale [0028]).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection for the rejection based on US Pat. No. 12,718,304, and a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection for the rejections based on pending applications.
Dependent claims 17-24 stand rejected as being dependent on independent claim 16.
Dependent claims 27 and 30 stand rejected as being dependent on independent claim 26.
Dependent claim 29 stands rejected as being dependent on independent claim 28.
Examiner’s Note: due to the sheer number of pending commonly owned patent documents that have been used to reject the instant claims over double patenting, the double patenting rejections have been abridged. If the Applicant feels that any of the above double patenting rejections are in error, they may include their reasoning in arguments in the response to the instant Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
