DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “Amendment in Response to Non-Final Office Action Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111” filed on February 16, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 16-17, 22, 26 and 28-30; cancelled Claims 25 and 31; and added no claim(s). Claims 1-15 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 16-24 and 26-30 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 16, 28, 29 and 30 are independent claims.
The present application is U.S. national stage application (35 U.S.C. § 371 application) filed on June 17, 2024 and having U.S. Patent Application No. 18/720,684. The present application corresponds to a PCT application filed on 12/19/20220; to a U.S. provisional application filed on 10/14/2022; and to numerous foreign European Applications filed in years 2021 and 2022, all of which were filed after March 16, 2013, and, therefore, the present application (i.e., App. No. 18/720,684) is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Examiner notes 37 CFR 1.57(c), “ ‘Essential material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference” (emphasis added). See 37 CFR 1.57(c).
Examiner notes that this case (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/720,684) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0054079 of FREY et al. (hereinafter “Frey”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made in this application to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/416,091 filed on 10/14/2022.
Foreign priority has been claimed in this application to PCT application PCT/EP2022/086749 filed on 12/19/2022, which claims priority to a number of European Applications filed in 2021 and in 2022.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2004, item number 13: “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.”
Examiner notes that Applicant has submitted over 80 documents in the “Information Disclosure Statement” (IDS) documents filed on July 1, 2024 (hereinafter “first IDS”) and on December 13, 2024 (hereinafter “second IDS”), without identifying documents having particular significance to patentability. The first and second IDS documents were filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 (c) and (p); however, based on the volume or size of the IDS documents, consideration was given only to the extent that relevance of the submitted reference(s) was established.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes the following CPC classifications as being related to this case:
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 •Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution;
G06Q 10/087 ••Inventory or stock management, e.g. order filling, procurement or balancing against orders
G06Q 10/0875 ••• Itemization or classification of parts, supplies or services, e.g. bill of materials
G06Q 10/0877 ••• by inventory control or reporting using inventory tracking or counting
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 • Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution; Inventory or stock management
G06Q 10/083 •• Shipping
G06Q 10/0833 ••• Tracking
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/30 •Administration of product recycling or disposal
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the objections to Claims 16, 22 and 28-30; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the objections to Claims 16, 22 and 28-30.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to cancelled Claims 25 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 112(b) rejections to Claims 25 and 31 (cancelled). However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 16-24 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 112(b) rejections to Claims 16-24 and 26-30, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to cancelled Claims 25 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 101 rejections to Claims 25 and 31 (cancelled). However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 16-24 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 16-24 and 26-30, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes prior art rejections to cancelled Claims 25 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 102 rejections to Claims 25 and 31. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 16-24 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; therefore, the Examiner maintains § 102 rejections to Claims 16-24 and 26-30, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(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.
Claims 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Regarding Claims 16, 25 and 28-30, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “the respective environmental attribute” makes antecedent reference to in each of Claims 16, 25 and 28-30, Claims 16, 25 and 28-30 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the respective environmental attribute” recited in each of Claims 16, 25 and 28-30. Consequently, Claims 16, 25 and 28-30 are each rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, regarding Claims 16, 25 and 30, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the respective environmental attribute” (singular) recited in Claims 16, 25 and 30:
(-1-) references all of the “respective environmental attributes” (plural) introduced in corresponding Claims 16 and 30;
(-2-) references only one (singular) of the “respective environmental attributes” introduced in corresponding Claims 16 and 30;
(-3-) references recited “at least one environmental attribute” (singular) recited in Claims 16 & 30; or
(-4-) references some combination thereof.
In another example, but regarding only Claim 28, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the respective environmental attribute” references first introduced “at least one environmental attribute” as recited in the preamble of Claim 28; references second introduced “at least one environmental attribute” as recited in Claim 28; references third introduced “at least one environmental attribute” as recited in Claim 28; or references some combination of the first, second and third introductions of the phrase “at least one environmental attribute” of Claim 28. In another example, but with respect to only Claim 29, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the respective environmental attribute” references first introduced “at least one environmental attribute” as recited in the preamble of Claim 29; references second introduced “at least one environmental attribute” as recited in Claim 29; references one of the “environmental attribute(s)” recited in Claim 29; or references some combination thereof. In summary, Claims 16, 25 and 28-30 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required.
Regarding Claims 21-22, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “the environmental attribute” makes antecedent reference to in Claim 16, Claims 21-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the environmental attribute” recited in each of Claims 21-22. Hence, Claims 21-22 are each rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the environmental attribute” recited in Claims 21 and 22: references first-recited “one or more environmental attributes” of Claim 16; references one of the “respective environmental attributes” recited in Claim 16; references the phrase “at least one environmental attribute” recited in Claim 16; references the phrase “at least one target environmental attribute” recited in Claim 16; or references some combination thereof. Therefore, Claims 21-22 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For purposes of this Office action, the phrase “the environmental attribute”, as recited in Claims 21-22, is understood to be any environmental attribute introduced in Claim 16. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claims 17-24 and 26-27 depend from independent Claim 16, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 17-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA .
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 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 16-24 and 26-28 appear to satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). However, Claims 29-30 do not satisfy Step 1 because each of Claims 29-30 in view of Applicant’s disclosure, each encompass software per se, which is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. For example, paragraph [0026] of Applicant’s U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0054079 of FREY et al. (hereinafter “Frey”), which corresponds to this patent application, mentions that “disclosed is a computer element, in particular a computer program product or a computer readable medium, with instructions, which when executed by one or more processor(s) are configured to carry out the steps of any of the methods disclosed herein” (e.g., Frey at ¶ [0026]). Thus, Examiner notes that it appears an apparatus (Claim 29) and system (Claim 30) comprising only a computer program product, such as instructions (e.g., provider and assignor in Claim 29; as well as network, allocator and assignor in Claim 30), encompasses no more than software per se.
Similarly, software may simply “use” a chemical product such as via software instructions of Frey at ¶ [0026] and, therefore, mere use or usage (such as previously recited in cancelled Claim 31), encompasses no more than software per se. However, under 35 U.S.C. 101, software by itself is not eligible subject matter for a U.S. patent. Since Claims 29-30 each encompass software per se, Claims 29-30 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A: Claims 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite management or accounting (e.g., allocating/tracking) of environmental information (i.e., one or more environmental attributes / properties / characteristics) associated with input materials (i.e., “one or more input material(s)”) that are used (as inputs/ingredients) to produce/manufacture a product (i.e., “at least one chemical product”) in a production network (“the chemical product is produced by a chemical production network”), as more particularly recited in the pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): one or more input materials; a chemical production network; at least one chemical product produced by the chemical production network; a computing interface; a virtual balancing system including balancing accounts (e.g., “a digital storage structure that stores data related to environmental attributes” per spec. ¶ [0045] of Frey); each of applicant’s recited steps/processes of providing, allocating and producing; (only Claim 28) providing access to the virtual balancing system; (only Claim 29) an apparatus comprising: an account provider configured to provide access to the virtual balancing system, and an outbound assignor; and (only Claim 30) a system comprising a chemical production network configured to produce the chemical product, an inbound allocator, and an outbound assignor. However, management of environmental information (“environmental attributes”) associated with materials used as inputs to produce or to manufacture a product in a production network, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) — also see Applicant’s disclosure including: Frey at ¶ [0106] mentioning “keep track of the total amount of input material (e.g. recycled or bio-based or bio-based materials) throughout the production network”; Frey at ¶ [0118] indicating “… environmental attributes associated with input material(s) entering the chemical production network can be tracked or stored in an accounting system”; Frey at ¶ [0119] “allocation rules may be used to allocate environmental attributes from the input material data to the virtual accounting system” such as, for example, “track the amounts and type of waste streams fed to the plants” (Frey at ¶ [0121]); as well as Frey at ¶ [0194] mentioning “environmental attributes associated with any input material(s) may be tracked through the value chain up to the end product. The methods, apparatuses and systems described herein enable transparency from early stages of the value chain on chemical product level to end stage of the value chain on end product level. Through linking of physical material and environmental attribute[,] environmentally friendly products and more sustainable production can be made transparent and tracked” (Frey at ¶ [0194]) and “environmental property of the chemical products produced by the chemical production network can be made transparent to customers” (Frey at ¶ [0032]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of managing environmental information of input materials used to produce/manufacture a product in a production network. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., chemical production of a chemical product in a chemical production network having a computing interface and a virtual balancing system with storage accounts, such as generally illustrated in Figures 1 and 7-8 of Applicant’s drawings}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of providing, allocating and producing, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 16-24 and 26-28 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of the limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device. Even if a computer/machine was implied, Applicant’s method claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., chemical production of a chemical product in a chemical production network having a computing interface and a virtual balancing system with storage accounts, such as generally illustrated in Figures 1 and 7-8 of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of providing, allocating and producing, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claim 29 are performed by the generically recited account provider and outbound assignor while limitations recited in the Claim 30 are performed by the generically recited chemical production network as well as inbound and outbound assignors, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer {e.g., see Applicant’s disclosure at Frey at ¶ [0026] noting that “one or more processor(s) cause any of the apparatuses disclosed herein to perform any of the methods disclosed herein” (emphases added by Examiner)} to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., chemical production of a chemical product in a chemical production network having a computing interface and a virtual balancing system with storage accounts, such as generally illustrated in Figures 1 and 7-8 of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of providing, allocating and producing, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: one or more input materials; a chemical production network; at least one chemical product produced by the chemical production network; a computing interface; a virtual balancing system including balancing accounts; each of applicant’s recited steps/processes of providing, allocating and producing; (only Claim 28) providing access to the virtual balancing system; (only Claim 29) an apparatus comprising: an account provider configured to provide access to the virtual balancing system, and an outbound assignor; and (only Claim 30) a system comprising a chemical production network configured to produce the chemical product, an inbound allocator, and an outbound assignor. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of providing, allocating and producing — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of providing, allocating and producing, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of providing and producing encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}; and each of the steps of allocating and assigning encompasses a data saving or storage function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}. In addition, Examiner notes that specification paragraph [0026] of Applicant’s U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0054079 of FREY et al. (hereinafter “Frey”), which corresponds to Applicant’s disclosure, mentions that “a computer element, in particular a computer program product or a computer readable medium, with instructions, which when executed by one or more processor(s)” are configured to carry out the steps of (i) “any of the methods disclosed herein…” as well as (ii) “any of the apparatuses disclosed herein to perform any of the methods disclosed herein” (e.g., Frey at ¶ [0026]). Examiner directs Applicant to see the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Examiner notes that employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph(s) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form(s) 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 16-24 and 26-30 are rejected under America Invents Act (AIA ) 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0237628 of Wollack et al. (hereinafter “Wollack”).
Regarding Claim 16, Wollack discloses a method for producing at least one chemical product associated with one or more environmental attributes, wherein the chemical product is produced by a chemical production network, the method comprising:
- providing one or more input material(s) associated with the one or more environmental attribute(s) to the chemical production network (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]),
- providing material data related to the one or more input material(s) and respective environmental attributes to a computing interface (e.g., Figure 6 of Wollack; “enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0009]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]),
- allocating the one or more environmental attribute(s) to a virtual balancing system, wherein the virtual balancing system includes balancing accounts associated with the one or more environmental attribute(s) (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]),
- producing at least one chemical product (e.g., “track how…was converted into… eventually products, thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to…eventually products” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0009]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]–[0050]), and
- assigning at least one environmental attribute from at least one balancing account associated with the respective environmental attribute to at least one chemical product (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]–[0052]);
wherein at least one target environmental attribute for the chemical product is provided and based on the at least one target environmental attribute at least one balancing account for deallocation the respective environmental attribute is selected (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) relate(s) to a renewable, a bio-based and/or a recycled content (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 18, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the virtual balancing system or the balancing account is associated with one or more characteristic(s) of the input material (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0009]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 19, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the virtual balancing system or the balancing account is associated with an input material type, a waste stream type, a biomass type, a renewable type, an allocation scheme, or combinations thereof (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0009]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 20, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the virtual balancing system or the balancing account is associated with one or more input material type(s) including pyrolysis oil, pyrolysis gas, synthesis gas, hydrogen, naphtha, methane, ethane, propane, chemicals, or combinations thereof (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 21, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the virtual balancing system or the balancing account is associated with one or more waste stream type(s) linked to at least the environmental attribute recycled (e.g., Wollack at ¶¶ [0023], [0025], and [0044]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; as well as Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack).
Regarding Claim 22, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the virtual balancing system or the balancing account is associated with one or more biomass type(s) linked to at least the environmental attribute bio-based or renewable (e.g., Wollack at ¶¶ [0023]–[0024] and [0028]–[0030]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; and Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack).
Regarding Claim 23, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the virtual balancing system or the balancing account is associated with metadata specifying the relationship between the input material(s) associated with one or more environmental attribute(s) and the chemical product (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 24, Wollack discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the relationship relates to the chemical production network, one or more production chain(s), one or more chemical product(s), one or more chemical product classes or combinations thereof (e.g., Wollack at ¶¶ [0023]–[0024] and [0028]–[0030]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; and Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack).
Regarding Claim 26, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein assigning the at least one environmental attribute to the at least one chemical product includes (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]) checking the environmental attribute balance of the balancing account associated with the at least one target environmental attribute (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]) and assigning the at least one environmental attribute from the respective balancing account to the at least one chemical product, if the balance is sufficient (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]), and/or checking the respective balancing accounts are associated with input material(s) used in the production chain of the chemical product and assigning the at least one environmental attribute from the respective balancing account to the at least one chemical product if the respective balancing account is associated with input material(s) used in the production chain of the chemical product (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]).
Regarding Claim 27, Wollack discloses the method of claim 16, wherein assigning at least one environmental attribute to the at least one chemical product includes providing a chemical product identifier associated with the produced chemical product and assigning the environmental attribute from the balancing account to the chemical product identifier (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “person inspecting the blockchain would be able to track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049] and [0052]).
Regarding Claim 28, Wollack discloses a computer-implemented method for assigning at least one environmental attribute to at least one chemical product produced by a chemical production network, the method comprising: providing access to a virtual balancing system including more than one balancing account associated with at least one environmental attribute and an environmental attribute balance with environmental attribute(s) allocated from one or more input material(s) provided to the chemical production network (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]), based on one or more environmental attribute(s) to be assigned to the at least one chemical product selecting at least one balancing account from the virtual balancing system (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]), and assigning at least one environmental attribute from at least one balancing account associated with the respective environmental attribute to at least one chemical product (e.g., “record and enable tracking of social impacts of the production process, such as… environmental impacts at each stage of production” —Wollack at ¶ [0042]; “track how a batch of polymer was converted into resin (and eventually products), thus also allowing tracking and proportional division of carbon-credits from polymer to resin (and eventually products)” —Wollack at ¶ [0066]; “FIG. 1A … showing … production of polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in a blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0009]; “FIG. 1B…showing … producing resins from the polymers and recording associated carbon-credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0010]; “FIG. 1C…showing… fabricating products from the resins and recording per-product carbon credit information in the blockchain” —Wollack at ¶ [0011]; Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; and Wollack at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0019]–[0020], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0044], [0049], [0052] and [0062]).
Regarding Claim 29, Wollack discloses an apparatus for assigning at least one environmental attribute to at least one chemical product produced by a chemical production network, the apparatus comprising: an account provider and an outbound assignor configured (e.g., Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0009]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0049] and [0066]) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 16, and, therefore, independent Claim 29 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 30, Wollack discloses a system for producing at least one chemical product associated with one or more environmental attributes, wherein the chemical product is produced by a chemical production network including one or more production chain(s), the system comprising: a chemical production network as well as inbound and outbound allocators configured (e.g., Figures 1A–1C and 2-3 of Wollack; as well as Wollack at ¶¶ [0009]–[0013], [0029], [0037], [0042], [0049] and [0066]) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 16, and, therefore, independent Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above regarding Claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on February 16, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes citations above to Wollack in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 7-8) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Page 8) Applicant asserts that independent Claim 16, as currently amended, is not anticipated by Wollack.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Regarding § 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 7. Examiner notes that the word “for” has been understood, in certain claim recitations, to mean “with the aim or for the purpose of”, but the aim or purpose, as currently recited in the claim language, is not required to be accomplished or performed. Similarly, the word “for” has been understood, in certain claim recitations, to mean “suitable to or appropriate to”, but what is suitable/appropriate, as currently recited in the claim language, is not required to be accomplished or performed. Examiner notes that none of the pending claims actually require or perform as argued by Applicant on page 7-8 since such preamble language in Applicant’s Claim 16 amounts to no more than optional or intended use language in accordance with MPEP § 2111.04. Therefore, Applicant's arguments constitute no more than a general allegation that the pending claims support a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner notes that merely adding a computer to perform mental steps does not transform patent-ineligible matter into patent-eligible matter. Thus, based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, the pending claims are drawn to ineligible subject matter and, therefore, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding § 102, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see citations to prior art reference of Wollack in view of the § 112(b) rejections above. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts prior art rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0076891 of Stuart et al. (hereinafter “Stuart”) for “A tracking system” and “…ledger type where participants (e.g. emitters, producers, and/or regulators) may access relevant data without having to participate in the entire blockchain” —Stuart at ¶ [0053].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0260592 of Nguyen et al. (hereinafter “Nguyen”) for “serialization of products and the recording of the transaction history thereof as transferred within and between the participant vendors, including consumers, of a supply chain” —Nguyen at ¶ [0013].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0005507 OF RODONI et al. (hereinafter “Rodoni”) for “registering, verifying, and accounting for an amount of…waste diverted… to a recycling facility…. determine a baseline carbon footprint based on the information and the protocol, and to determine a reduced carbon footprint resulting from content diversion” —Abstract of Rodoni; and “a management system implementing a … carbon exchange” —Rodoni at ¶ [0001].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621