DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 have been previously cancelled and Claims 16-30 have been previously added; therefore, Claims 16-30 are currently pending in application 18/720,690.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 rejection of Claims 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, has been withdrawn due to Applicant amendments.
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.
The rejection of Claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea) is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 26 and 27 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 26 and 27 are directed toward a method (Associating a chemical with a digital asset. The claim contains no elements for producing/ formulating the chemical – both claims 26-27 simply name a chemical/ compound). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 26 and 27 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 26 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of supply chain management (SCM).
Regarding independent claim 26, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A nitrogen containing chemical associated (not created or produced – just identified) with a digital asset (descriptive information) including a decentral identifier associated with the nitrogen containing chemical and linked to one or more environmental attribute(s) of one or more input material(s) and/or one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the nitrogen containing chemical.
As the claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 26 is directed to the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); specifically, collecting and tracking data related to a chemical’s/ product’s environmental impact throughout a supply chain).
Dependent claim 27 provides further details to the abstract idea of claim 26 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 26.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 26 and 27 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “digital asset”, and a “decentral identifier”. However, this limitation is not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claim 27 merely incorporates the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 26 and 27 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “digital asset”, and a “decentral identifier”. However, this limitation is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claim 27 merely recites further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 26, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 26; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 26 and 27 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 16, 20-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rice et al. (US 2022/0240434 A1) in view of Garg et al. (WO 2021/156835 A1).
As per independent Claims 16, 25 and 28-30, Rice discloses a system/ method for producing a nitrogen containing chemical associated with a digital asset (See at least Abstract; Fig.1; Para 0026-0027, synthetically manufactured nitrogen fertilizer; Para 0035; and Para 0045-0049, Container Identifier/ Data), the system comprising:
a chemical production network configured to produce the nitrogen containing chemical (Nitrogen Fertilizer, i.e. agricultural products - synthetic or manufactured nitrogen fertilizer), wherein the nitrogen containing chemical is produced from one or more input material(s) through one or more chemical process(s) of the chemical production network, wherein the one or more input material(s) (i.e. atmospheric nitrogen, Ammonium nitrate (AN), UAN (urea ammonium nitrate)) the one or more chemical process(s) are associated with one or more environmental attribute(s) (i.e. GHG emissions - emissions of nitrous oxide (N.sub.2O)) (See at least Para 0002-0005; and Para 0017, “32% UAN fertilizer is a mixture of Ammonium Nitrate and water that contains 32% nitrogen, so one ton of manufactured UAN fertilizer contains 640 pounds of nitrogen”; See also Para 0026, “For example, embodiments of the present invention may track a product at the point of manufacture, where the product is transferred to a tagged container that can communicate with product transfer equipment and product application equipment. In embodiments in which product information is stored on a container tag, that product information may include, for example, the type of product, the amount of product filled in the container, the location of the container at the time of filling, the date and time of filling, and the manufacturer, owner, and possessor of the product in the container and/or of the container itself.”);
a production operating apparatus configured to generate the digital asset ("blockchain entry") by providing a decentral identifier ("unique product identifier") associated with the produced nitrogen containing chemical and linking the decentral identifier to the one or more environmental attribute(s) (See at least Para 0025, “Embodiments of the present invention are directed to computer-implemented methods and systems for recording, in an external database (such as a distributed ledger, e.g., a blockchain), information about agricultural products in containers. The following description discloses a variety of embodiments of such methods and systems.”; Para 0028, “Embodiments of the present invention may also be used to verify that a particular product (e.g., pesticide or fertilizer) was used, or was not used (e.g., applied, dispensed, transferred, planted, or consumed), in a particular location or area (e.g., a specific latitude and longitude or set of latitudes and longitudes), or that no less or no more than a particular amount of a particular product was used (e.g., applied, dispensed, transferred, planted, or consumed) in a particular location or area. For example, embodiments of the present invention may use the records created and stored in an external database (e.g., a distributed ledger) to certify that an organic farm did not use non-organic chemicals.”; Para 0037, “Embodiments of the present invention may also be used to produce a verifiable record of the transfer of product from one container to another over time (which may be in addition to tracking the location(s) of those containers over time). For example, one example of a product that may be tracked by embodiments of the present invention is nitrogen fertilizer. The initial container into which the nitrogen fertilizer is placed after manufacture is typically a large tank or even a bulk warehouse that is only segregated by bins or divider walls within the warehouse. Nitrogen fertilizer is often sold by the ton, so it is frequently transported by rail car or ocean container. Embodiments of the present invention may be used to tag and track the filling and dispensing of fertilizer and other products from such bulk containers, such as for the purpose of creating a verifiable chain of custody and application record for purposes of carbon credit validation.”; Para 0049, “Container identifier (ID): data that uniquely represents a particular container. As this implies the container IDs of different containers may differ from each other. A container ID may be contained within a container data record.”; Para 0209, “The method may begin (step 301) and include the following. The manufacturer manufactures a Product A (step 302). The manufacturer transfers some amount of Product A to a tagged Container A (i.e., fills Container A with some amount of Product A) (step 303).”; Para 0210 “One or more records 5 containing data representing information about the storage of Product A into Container A are stored in the external database (step 304). The storing in step 304 may be performed by any of a variety of parties in any of a variety of ways. The following description of examples of ways in which step 304 may be performed is equally applicable to other steps in the method of FIGS. 3A-3N for storing data in the distributed ledger.”; See also Para 0214-0219, “[0214] The record 305 may contain any of a variety of data, such as data representing any one or more of the following, in any combination: [0215] A type of the action represented by the external database entry, e.g., “container initiation action.” [0216] A unique ID of Container A. [0217] A unique ID of a possessor of Container A at the time of the filling in 3tep 303 (e.g., a unique ID of the Manufacturer). [0218] A unique ID of Product A. [0219] The batch, lot, quantity, date, time, and location at which Product A was transferred to Container A in step 303.”);
providing the digital asset in association with the produced nitrogen containing chemical, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the nitrogen containing chemical is made accessible to a user of the nitrogen containing chemical through the digital asset (See at least Para 0053, “Distributed ledger: a database that is consensually shared and synchronized across multiple sites, institutions, or geographies, accessible by multiple people. A distributed ledger allows transactions to have public witnesses. The participant at each node of the network can access the recordings shared across that network and can own an identical copy of it. Any changes or additions made to a distributed ledger typically are reflected and copied to all participants quickly, such as within a few seconds or minutes. A blockchain is an example of a distributed ledger. A distributed ledger is not a central database, as those terms are used herein.”;).
While, Rice does disclose possible embodiments/ use cases of an external database (See at least Para 0026-0028), and “Data Profiles: data stored in a CDM may be tagged as public or private. Public data stored in a CDM may be read by any entity without restriction. Private data stored in a CDM may be readable only by entities satisfying specified criteria. For example, private data stored in a CDM may be readable only by a manufacturer, owner, possessor, or user of the CDM.” (Para 0051); Rice fails to expressly disclose wherein the decentral identifier is linked to a digital representation of the one or more environmental attribute(s), wherein the digital representation includes a representation for* accessing the one or more environmental attribute(s) or parts thereof, wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) are stored in a data base associated with the output material producer for* access by an output material user.
*Please note:
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“For”
See e.g. In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266, 267 (CCPA 1968)(where the court interpreted the claimed phrase “a connector member for engaging shield means” and held that the shield means was not a positive element of the claim since “[t]here is no positive inclusion of ‘shield means’ in what is apparently intended to be a claim to structure consisting of a combination of elements.”
b. “-Able”
See e.g. In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266, 267-68 (CCPA 1968)(where the court interpreted the claimed phrase “said ferrule-forming member being crimpable onto said shield means” and held that the shield means was not a positive element of the claim since “[t]here is no positive inclusion of ‘shield means’ in what is apparently intended to be a claim to structure consisting of a combination of elements.... “[t]he ferrule or connector member is crimpable but not required, structurally, to be crimped .... These cannot be regarded as structural limitations and therefore not as positive limitations in a claim directed to structure. They cannot therefore be relied on to distinguish from the prior art.”)
Functional recitation(s) have been considered but given less patentable weight because they fail to add any steps and are thereby regarded as intended use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where the language in a method claim states only a purpose and intended result, the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.).
However, the analogous art of Garg discloses a product supply chain tracking system/ method wherein the decentral identifier is linked to a digital representation of the one or more environmental attribute(s), wherein the digital representation includes a representation, wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) are stored in a data base associated with the output material producer (See at least Figs.3-4, Pg.10 Lines 27-30, “Figure 4b shows a mobile application interface illustrating environmentally, sustainability, and recommended friendly actions for the user to take. Figure 4c and 4d show mobile application interface illustrating the environment impact assessment. The present invention helps in managing lifecycle of a product to increase positive impact of a consumer on environmental parameters. The present invention is configured to scan and identify products, calculate their environmental impact, suggest actions to drive recycling, reuse, or resale to extend their lifecycle. All these Sustainability and recommended actions are be recorded in a database, distributed ledger …” and “After scanning, the identifier generates output that includes product description, brand, materials used etc.”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the decentral identifier is linked to a digital representation of the one or more environmental attribute(s), wherein the digital representation includes a representation, wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) are stored in a database associated with the output material producer, as disclosed by Garg in the system disclosed by Rice, for the advantage of providing a system/ method for producing a chemical associated with a chemical passport or digital asset, with the ability to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the system/ method by incorporating a variety of data storage technology and techniques (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claim 20, Rice and Garg disclose wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) are associated with at least one property related to environmental impact of the one or more input material(s) and/or the chemical process(s) (Rice: See at least Para 0027, “Embodiments of the present invention may also be used to verify that a reduction in product usage has been achieved, compared to some baseline.”).
As per Claim 21, Rice and Garg disclose wherein the production operating apparatus is configured to gather environmental attributes associated with the produced nitrogen containing chemical before, during and/or after production of the nitrogen containing chemical by the chemical production network (Rice: See at least Para 0027).
As per Claim 22, Rice and Garg disclose wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the nitrogen containing chemical 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), or the environmental attribute(s) associated with the chemical process(es) (Rice: See at least Para 0027).
As per Claim 23, Rice and Garg disclose wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with input material(s) are provided before, during and/or after production of the nitrogen containing chemical 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 nitrogen containing chemical by the chemical production network (Rice: See at least Para 0027).
As per Claim 24, Rice and Garg disclose wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the produced nitrogen containing chemical relate to environmental properties generated from process data associated with the chemical processing of the input material(s) and/or energy data associated with energy consumption of the chemical processing, wherein the environmental attribute(s) associated with the produced nitrogen containing chemical are generated before, during and/or after production of the nitrogen containing chemical by the chemical production network (Rice: See at least Para 0027).
As per independent Claims 26, Rice discloses a nitrogen containing chemical associated with a digital asset (See at least Abstract; Fig.1; Para 0026-0027, synthetically manufactured nitrogen fertilizer; Para 0035; and Para 0045-0049, Container Identifier/ Data) including a decentral identifier associated with the nitrogen containing chemical (See at least Para 0030 and Para 0047, Container Data Record (CDR), “A container data record may be, be contained within, or contain, one or more non-fungible tokens (NFTs)”).
While Rice does disclose wherein the product identifier is associated with one or more environmental attribute(s) (i.e. GHG emissions - emissions of nitrous oxide (N.sub.2O)) (See at least Para 0002-0005; and Para 0017, “32% UAN fertilizer is a mixture of Ammonium Nitrate and water that contains 32% nitrogen, so one ton of manufactured UAN fertilizer contains 640 pounds of nitrogen”; See also Para 0026, “For example, embodiments of the present invention may track a product at the point of manufacture, where the product is transferred to a tagged container that can communicate with product transfer equipment and product application equipment. In embodiments in which product information is stored on a container tag, that product information may include, for example, the type of product, the amount of product filled in the container, the location of the container at the time of filling, the date and time of filling, and the manufacturer, owner, and possessor of the product in the container and/or of the container itself.”); Rice fails to expressly disclose wherein the identifier is linked to one or more environmental attribute(s) of one or more input material(s) and/or one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the nitrogen containing chemical.
However, the analogous art of Garg discloses a product supply chain tracking system/ method wherein the identifier is linked to one or more environmental attribute(s) of one or more input material(s) and/or one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the nitrogen containing chemical (See at least Figs.3-5, Pgs.10-11 “Figure 4b shows a mobile application interface illustrating environmentally, sustainability, and recommended friendly actions for the user to take. Figure 4c and 4d show mobile application interface illustrating the environment impact assessment. The present invention helps in managing lifecycle of a product to increase positive impact of a consumer on environmental parameters. The present invention is configured to scan and identify products, calculate their environmental impact, suggest actions to drive recycling, reuse, or resale to extend their lifecycle. All these Sustainability and recommended actions are be recorded in a database, distributed ledger …”; Pg. 11, “After scanning, the identifier generates output that includes product description, brand, materials used etc.”; and Pg. 13, “The recommendation engine is configured to generate an output for said scanned product by comparing/matching said product environmental impact assessment including environmental inputs or outputs, wherein said inputs/outputs comprises water, C02, waste, chemicals and effluents generated during manufacturing and recycling of said product.”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the identifier is linked to one or more environmental attribute(s) of one or more input material(s) and/or one or more chemical process(s) used to produce the nitrogen containing chemical, as disclosed by Garg in the system disclosed by Rice, for the advantage of providing a system/ method for producing a chemical associated with a chemical passport or digital asset, with the ability to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the system/ method by incorporating a variety of data storage technology and techniques (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Garg.
As per Claims 17 and 27, Rice discloses wherein the nitrogen containing chemical associated with the digital asset is selected from various equivalent polymer(s) (See at least Para 0005, Rice does disclose the possible Nitrogen Fertilizer example as a produced product: Urea Ammonium Nitrate (Urea - CO(NH2)2 or CH4N2O) (Ammonium Nitrate - NH4NO3 )(Water – H2O), which is equivalent to the numerous possible choices or any mixture thereof; furthermore, the specific nitrogen containing chemical associated with the digital asset is considered by the Examiner to be a design choice limitation, as the specific polymer used in the system/ method disclosed in the independent claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to produce a desired result; as is clear by the vast amount of optional nitrogen containing chemicals (“or any mixture thereof”) claimed by Applicant.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rice in view of Garg et al. (WO 2021/156835 A1), and further in view of Dittrich-Krämer et al. (Dittrich-Krämer, Brigitte & Clauss, Joachim & Kormann, Claudius & Kicherer, Andreas & Krüger, Christian & Shtirkova, Teodora & Alexander, Holli & Pierce, Jason & Linder, Mats & Naber, Gerald & Chavin, Stella & Dilkes-Hoffman, Leela & Durand, Christophe & Surun, Delphine & Sharma, Gaurav & Marchese, Enrico & Gubelmann-Bonneau, Isabelle & Tryjefaczka, Myriam & Hoffman, Bill & Uolamo, Sanna. “ENABLING A CIRCULAR ECONOMY FOR CHEMICALS WITH THE MASS BALANCE APPROACH A WHITE PAPER FROM CO.PROJECT MASS BALANCE”, May/ June 2019).
As per Claim 18, while Rice does disclose wherein the digital asset of the nitrogen containing chemical includes environmental attributes related to the input material(s) (Nitrogen => GHG emissions - emissions of nitrous oxide (N.sub.2O), See at least Para 0002-0005), both Rice and Garg fail to disclose wherein the digital asset of the nitrogen containing chemical includes mass balanced environmental attributes related to the input material(s).
However, the analogous art of Dittrich-Krämera discloses a system/ method for tracking of a chemical product within an industrial supply chains wherein the tracking of a chemical includes mass balanced environmental attributes (recycled content) related to the input material(s) (See at least Pg.4, “Mass balance accounting is one of several well-known chain of custody approaches which have been designed to trace the flow of materials through a complex value chain. It is used in a number of established programmes related to sustainable and/or responsible sourcing, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Better Cotton Initiative (BCI). It is in principle well suited to address the challenges facing chemical recycling when trying to track the flow of recycled feedstock around chemical industry plants.”; Pgs.10-14, Chain of Custody Models, “Then, the mass balance chain of custody is designed to track the total amount of the content in scope (e.g. sustainably sourced wood fibre) through the production system and ensure an appropriate allocation of this content to the finished goods based on auditable bookkeeping.”; Pg. 15, “Balancing enables precise accounting of the amount of recycled materials used in the production plants and traceability on how these are allocated to products-to-be-sold.”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the digital asset of the nitrogen containing chemical includes mass balanced environmental attributes related to the input material(s), as disclosed by Dittrich-Krämera, in the system disclosed by Garg, in the system disclosed by Rice, for the advantage of providing a system/ method for producing a nitrogen containing chemical associated with a digital asset, with the ability to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the system/ method and incorporating a variety of data and metrics in the saved data regarding the produced chemical (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claim 19, while Rice does disclose wherein the digital asset of the nitrogen containing chemical includes environmental attributes related to the input material(s) (Nitrogen => GHG emissions - emissions of nitrous oxide (N.sub.2O), See at least Para 0002-0005), both Rice and Garg fail to disclose wherein the digital asset of the nitrogen containing chemical includes mass balanced environmental attributes related to the input material(s).
However, the analogous art of Dittrich-Krämera discloses a system/ method for tracking of a chemical product within an industrial supply chains wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) (i.e. recycled content) associated with the chemical product are provided from at least one balancing account configured to store environmental attribute(s) (recycled content /GHG emissions) associated with input material(s) (See at least Pg.9, “To be able to properly follow and account for the right amounts of recycled substance, a robust chain of custody method is needed.”; Pgs.10-14, Chain of Custody Models, “Then, the mass balance chain of custody is designed to track the total amount of the content in scope (e.g. sustainably sourced wood fibre) through the production system and ensure an appropriate allocation of this content to the finished goods based on auditable bookkeeping.”; Pg. 15, “Here, the bio-feedstock is mixed with conventional fossil-based feedstock at the very beginning of the production chain and then allocated to selected products through a precise accounting method. Customers of ‘biomass-balanced products’ contribute to reducing CO2e emissions and save fossil resources (detailed description in VCI 20176). The same rationale holds true for recycled feedstocks. Balancing enables precise accounting of the amount of recycled materials used in the production plants and traceability on how these are allocated to products-to-be-sold”).
Therefore, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the one or more environmental attribute(s) associated with the nitrogen containing chemical are provided from at least one balancing account configured to store environmental attribute(s) associated with input material(s), as disclosed by Dittrich-Krämera, in the system disclosed by Garg, in the system disclosed by Rice, for the advantage of providing a system/ method for producing a nitrogen containing chemical associated with a digital asset, with the ability to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the system/ method and incorporating a variety of data and metrics in the saved data regarding the produced chemical, received from a variety of data sources (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/29/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection of claims 26-27, has been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection will remain as FINAL, based on the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/29/2025, with respect to Claims 16-30, have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The Applicant has made the argument that the claims 26-27 are directed to patent eligible subject matter.8
However, while the Applicant's claims are directed to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter (Step 1), the claims fail to recite limitations that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Step 2a-2b).
The claim limitations (under their broadest reasonable interpretation) recite Certain methods of organizing human activity as defined in the guidance set forth in the 2019 Memorandum. This is so because the claimed limitations recite steps that involve supply chain management (SCM). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception of Certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, having determined that claims recite a judicial exception, analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See Memorandum (Step 2A, prong 2), see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application within the meaning defined in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, Examiner notes the following. While the computer technology does make the steps more easily performed, in principle, the steps can be performed without such computer and the notion of ‘practicality’ is not evidenced. ‘Practicality’ is based on whether the invention demonstrates:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The claims are simply directed to an abstract idea (searching, correlating, and transmitting/ displaying data based on saved rules and characteristics) with additional generic computer elements, because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Finally, the examination proceeds to evaluating whether the claims add specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum (Step 2B). The claims do not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections of Claims 26-27.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments; especially the following:
Small et al. (US 2018/0012311 A1) - [0084] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, a blockchain can be accompanied with or built upon through one or more side blockchains. These side blockchains can each originate or emanate from a given block or entry within a blockchain and extend outwards such that the original blockchain contains many different end points. For example, a blockchain may contain five blockchains wherein (1) is an entry for the raw materials of a given part/product, (2) is an entry for the processing of the given part/product, (3) is the processing entity of the given part/product, (4) is a patent associated with the part/product, and (5) is the cost paid to the processing entity. A new blockchain could be added to blockchain 1 identifying the supplier of the raw materials, or a new blockchain could be added to blockchain 3 indicating a certification of the machinery performing the processing on the given part/product. Accordingly, embodiments provide that rather than simply adding blockchains to the end of the fifth blockchain, new blockchains can be added from any one of these five blockchains thereby providing information relevant to that specific blockchain.; [0085] “In another example, a given part/product may be represented by a main blockchain having multiple blocks, wherein each block in the blockchain is associated with a piece of the given part/product. Each piece may have been supplied from a different supplier and each piece may have its own associated product information, such as its different raw materials, different processes of manufacture, different intellectual property embodied therein, and different costs. In this regard, each block in the main blockchain can be associated with a piece of the given part/product and side blockchains can extend outward from the main blockchain representing that particular pieces product information.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. 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 for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
December 7, 2025
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights