DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 9-10 are rejected 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.
The term “preferably” in Claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of “preferably accessible by the data providing service and/or the data consuming service” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “preferably.” The specification states that the decentral identifier “may be provided to a node generating the chemical product passport and to at least one authentication data registry node, preferably accessible by the data providing service and/or the data consuming service.” However, the specification does not provide any guidance as to what preferably means. For example, it does not describe whether the accessibility is required or optional, or whether it is required by at least one of the data providing or the data consuming service. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the term.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the physical entity of the product." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the physical entity of the chemical product." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a machine. Claims 11-19 are directed to a process. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 11.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “generating a chemical product passport, perform the following steps: receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with chemical product data and a data owner, in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data; and providing the chemical product passport for access under control by the data owner.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to commercial interactions including business relations (i.e., generating a chemical product passport, perform the following steps: receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with chemical product data and a data owner, in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data; and providing the chemical product passport for access under control by the data owner), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., an apparatus comprising: one or more computing nodes; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions, a data consuming service, and a data providing service). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to commercial interactions including business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an apparatus comprising: one or more computing nodes; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions, a data consuming service, and a data providing service. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers receiving, generating, and transmitting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (an apparatus comprising: one or more computing nodes; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions, a data consuming service, and a data providing service) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites an “authentication data registry,” which the specification recites that it may be “a central registry node such as a central file system, a centrally managed distributed database, and/or a centrally managed peer-to-peer network,” or may be “a decentral registry such as a distributed ledger, a decentralized file system, a distributed database, and/or a peer-to-peer network.” Dependent claims 13 and 17 recite a “chemical product,” however, it is recited in a manner where it is generally linking the abstract idea to the chemical product as a field of use, where the product is claimed as a general object that the chemical product passport is attributed to, without any specificity regarding the product, such as a production or manufacturing process for the product itself. The additional elements are generic technology and generic products used to implement the abstract idea, and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vivier (US-20190043008).
Claim 1 (and Similarly Claims 11-19)
Vivier teaches the following limitations:
An apparatus for generating a chemical product passport, the apparatus comprising: one or more computing nodes; and one or more computer-readable media having thereon computer-executable instructions that are structured such that, when executed by the one or more computing nodes, cause the apparatus to perform the following steps: receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with chemical product data and a data owner ([0017] As shown in FIG. 1A, example implementation 100 may include an analytics system, a blockchain database, and a robot R1, of a product producer, with a sensor device. As shown by reference number 105, robot R1 may use the sensor device (e.g., an infrared spectrometer) to analyze a product of the product producer to determine a chemical identity (e.g., a chemical composition) of the product. The chemical identity may identify an attribute of the product, such as a geographic origin of the product, a particular manufacturing or processing plant from which the product originated, a quality of the product, and/or the like),
in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data ([0018] As shown by reference number 110, robot R1 may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database. In some implementations, the analytics system may store additional information in the block and/or transaction with the information identifying the chemical identity. For example, the analytics system may store information identifying the product producer, a calendar date and/or time at which the chemical identity was determined, and/or the like); and
providing the chemical product passport for access by a data consuming service under control by a data providing service associated with the data owner ([0021] As shown by reference number 135, robot R2 of the product distributor may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 140, the analytics system may verify the chemical identity using the previously stored block and/or transaction in the blockchain database. For example, the analytics system may compare the chemical identity determined by robot R2 of the product distributor to the chemical identity determined by robot R1 of the product producer to verify the chemical identity).
Claim 2
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the decentral identifier is provided by one central node or by one or more decentral nodes ([0018] As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database; [0021] As shown by reference number 140, the analytics system may verify the chemical identity using the previously stored block and/or transaction in the blockchain database).
Claim 3
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the decentral identifier is provided to a node generating the chemical product passport and to at least one authentication data registry, preferably accessible by the data providing service and/or the data consuming service ([0018] As shown by reference number 110, robot R1 may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database; [0021] As shown by reference number 135, robot R2 of the product distributor may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 140, the analytics system may verify the chemical identity using the previously stored block and/or transaction in the blockchain database. For example, the analytics system may compare the chemical identity determined by robot R2 of the product distributor to the chemical identity determined by robot R1 of the product producer to verify the chemical identity).
Claim 4
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the generation of the chemical product passport includes providing the decentral identifier associated with a physical entity of a product ([0017] As shown by reference number 105, robot R1 may use the sensor device (e.g., an infrared spectrometer) to analyze a product of the product producer to determine a chemical identity (e.g., a chemical composition) of the product; [0018] As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database).
Claim 5
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the chemical product passport includes one or more authentication mechanisms associated with the decentral identifier and the data related to the chemical product data ([0018] As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database. In some implementations, the analytics system may store additional information in the block and/or transaction with the information identifying the chemical identity. For example, the analytics system may store information identifying the product producer, a calendar date and/or time at which the chemical identity was determined, and/or the like; [0020] As shown by reference number 130, robot R2 of the product distributor may use the sensor device to analyze the product to determine a chemical identity of the product; [0021] As shown by reference number 135, robot R2 of the product distributor may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 140, the analytics system may verify the chemical identity using the previously stored block and/or transaction in the blockchain database. For example, the analytics system may compare the chemical identity determined by robot R2 of the product distributor to the chemical identity determined by robot R1 of the product producer to verify the chemical identity. Assume, for example, for FIG. 1B that the comparison of the chemical identities indicates a match. As shown by reference number 145, the analytics system may store a block and/or transaction associated with the product distributor (e.g., a block, and/or transaction that is in addition to the block and/or transaction associated with the product producer)).
Claim 6
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the chemical product passport is related to one or more authorization mechanisms associated with the decentral identifier and the data related to chemical product data ([0074] when server device 230 is controlled by a third party, the third party may include a trusted entity, such as a regulatory entity, a broker, a government entity, and/or the like. In some implementations, when the third party is a trusted entity, the third party may have the authority to store information in the blockchain, to determine whether a term of a contract is satisfied, to verify whether a product or other item was analyzed, to verify a result of the analysis, and/or the like. In this way, security of a transaction related to a product is increased by providing a third party with control of the data structure that stores information about chemical identities and attributes of products).
Claim 7
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the data related to chemical product data includes one or more digital representation(s) pointing to chemical product data or parts thereof ([0018] As shown by reference number 110, robot R1 may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database. In some implementations, the analytics system may store additional information in the block and/or transaction with the information identifying the chemical identity. For example, the analytics system may store information identifying the product producer, a calendar date and/or time at which the chemical identity was determined, and/or the like).
Claim 8
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the chemical product passport is associated with data related to different classes of chemical product data ([0018] As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database. In some implementations, the analytics system may store additional information in the block and/or transaction with the information identifying the chemical identity. For example, the analytics system may store information identifying the product producer, a calendar date and/or time at which the chemical identity was determined, and/or the like; [0021] As shown by reference number 140, the analytics system may verify the chemical identity using the previously stored block and/or transaction in the blockchain database. For example, the analytics system may compare the chemical identity determined by robot R2 of the product distributor to the chemical identity determined by robot R1 of the product producer to verify the chemical identity. Assume, for example, for FIG. 1B that the comparison of the chemical identities indicates a match. As shown by reference number 145, the analytics system may store a block and/or transaction associated with the product distributor (e.g., a block, and/or transaction that is in addition to the block and/or transaction associated with the product producer)).
Claim 9
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the chemical product passport is associated with at least one class of chemical product data that includes chemical product declaration data, chemical product safety data and/or certificate of analysis data associated with the physical entity of the product ([0018] As shown by reference number 110, robot R1 may provide information identifying the chemical identity to the analytics system. As shown by reference number 115, the analytics system may store the information identifying the chemical identity in an encrypted record, such as a block, and/or a transaction (e.g., a transfer of information) of a block, in a blockchain database. In some implementations, the analytics system may store additional information in the block and/or transaction with the information identifying the chemical identity. For example, the analytics system may store information identifying the product producer, a calendar date and/or time at which the chemical identity was determined, and/or the like).
Claim 10
Vivier further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the chemical product passport is associated with at least one class of chemical product data that includes access restricted chemical product data associated with the physical entity of the chemical product ([0119] As shown by reference number 890, the regulatory entity may store information in the blockchain related to the transaction. For example, the regulatory entity may use analytics system 205 to store a blacklist, a crime report, policy information, and/or the like. In some implementations, the information stored by the regulatory entity may be private and accessible by a particular entity (e.g., another regulatory entity, a governmental entity, a law enforcement entity, etc.)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights