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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response under 37 CFR 1.111 (“Response”) on 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims a directed to a particular computer-implemented architecture, however “a product passport generator” could simply be software which generates the product passport and the “at least one authentication data registry” could simply be a database which stores the authentication data. Further, the step for authenticating access as performed by the authentication data registry is cited as post-solution activity which do not necessarily further limit the apparatuses or methods in which they are claimed. Applicant has simply further limited the claims to providing the identifier to a program and a database, which is not directed to a particular computer-implemented architecture for generating a product passport and authenticating service access through a registry. At most, the claims may link the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. product passports) which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media,” “a product passport generator” (if this even is considered hardware and not just simply software), and “at least one authentication data registry” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept.
As for the rejection under 35 USC 103, again, the authenticating access step does not further limit the apparatus and method claims, so therefore the Examiner does not need to find this limitation. Further, given the amendments and using BRI, Examiner only has to provide providing the first decentral identifier to the software which generates the product passport and a list/database. Kim teaches “manufacturer may assign Decentralized Identifiers (DID) and serial numbers (S/N) to produced products through the object owner history management apparatus 100, may issue product registration Verifiable credentials (VC), and may register the product registration VC in the blockchain 20” (Kim: ¶ 0046), “QR code generation unit may provide …a function of generating a QR code from the Decentralized ID (DID) information and Verifiable Presentation (VP) of a user terminal and outputting the QR code” (Kim: ¶ 0063), “the object owner history management apparatus 100 may generate a QR code containing the hash value of the serial number (S/N) and a URL, which correspond to access information for accessing the product registration VC recorded in the blockchain 20” (Kim: ¶ 0104) and “the object owner history management apparatus 100 may generate a QR code containing detailed information of the product and information (i.e., a random value (S/N hash value) and a URL) that enables acquisition and retrieval of the product registration VC. The QR code may be enclosed with the product to be sold by a manufacturer, and may be sold and delivered by the manufacturer” (Kim: ¶ 0105). Therefore, Applicant’s argument have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1-20 are directed to receiving a request, providing an identifier and generating and providing a product passport including the identifier, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process, machine, or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claims 1 and 2 (and similarly claims 13-20) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
An apparatus for generating a product passport, the apparatus comprising:
one or more computing node(s) 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 node(s), cause the apparatus to perform the following steps:
receiving a request to provide a first decentral identifier associated with at least one first physical entity of a product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain;
in response to the request, providing the first decentral identifier associated with the at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain to a product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry;
generating a product passport including the first decentral identifier and data related to the at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain; and
providing the product passport for access by a data consuming service under control of a data providing service associated with a data owner, wherein the at least one authentication data registry is configured to authenticate access by the data consuming service.
2. An apparatus for producing a product associated with a product passport, wherein the product comprises at least one first physical entity of a product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain, the apparatus comprising:
at least one collector configured to collect product data associated with at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain, wherein the at least one first physical entity comprises at least one physical identifier;
at least one assignor configured to assign the physical identifier to a first decentral identifier for generating the product passport associated with the at least one first physical entity; and
a product passport generator configured to generate the product passport by receiving a request to provide at least the first decentral identifier associated with product data of the at least one first physical entity and in response to the request, generating the product passport including the first decentral identifier and data related to the product data of the at least one first physical entity,
wherein the first decentral identifier is provided to the product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry, and wherein the at least one authentication data registry is configured to authenticate access by a data consuming service.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media” and “at least one authentication data registry” (the generator in claims 1 and 2 and the collector and assignor in claim 2 do not necessarily recite structure, i.e. an additional element, but could simply be software, even the registry could just be a list) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media” and “registry” language, “receiving a request to provide a first decentral identifier associated with at least one first physical entity of a product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain; in response to the request, providing the first decentral identifier associated with the at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain…; and providing the product passport for access by a data consuming service under control of a data providing service associated with a data owner… at least one collector configured to collect product data associated with at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain, wherein the at least one first physical entity comprises at least one physical identifier; at least one assignor configured to assign the physical identifier to a first decentral identifier for generating the product passport associated with the at least one first physical entity” in the context of this claim encompass methods of organized human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organized human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, “generating a product passport including the first decentral identifier and data related to the at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain… a product passport generator configured to generate the product passport by receiving a request to provide at least the first decentral identifier associated with product data of the at least one first physical entity and in response to the request, generating the product passport including the first decentral identifier and data related to the product data of the at least one first physical entity, and authenticate access by the data consuming service” in the context of this claim encompass mental processes. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements – reciting “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media”, “a product passport generator” and “at least one authentication data registry” (of which the generator and registry are not necessarily even hardware). The “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media”, “a product passport generator” and “at least one authentication data registry” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f), i.e. the providing, generating and assigning steps), data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), i.e. the receiving and collecting steps and the authentication step which is post-solution activity) and linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e. product passports). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, insignificant extra-solution activity and linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “one or more computing node(s) and one or more computer-readable media” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0067342 A1 to Guinard et al. (“Guinard”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0173916 A1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
As per claims 1, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard includes:
An apparatus for generating a product passport, the apparatus comprising (Guinard: Abstract and Fig. 1):
one or more computing node(s) 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 node(s), cause the apparatus to perform the following steps (Guinard: Abstract and Fig. 1):
receiving a request to provide a first decentral identifier associated with at least one first physical entity of a product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain (Guinard: ¶¶ 0015 “ the computer system may receive a request for a desired number of globally unique product identifiers that is associated with the electronic device”, 0067 “the computer system may generate, in a decentralized manner, a globally unique product identifier for the product based at least in part on a smart contract” and 0085-0086);
in response to the request, providing the first decentral identifier associated with the at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain (Guinard: ¶¶ 0015 “the globally unique product identifier may be generated based at least on the request” and 0067 “the computer system may generate, in a decentralized manner, a globally unique product identifier for the product based at least in part on a smart contract”);
generating a product passport including the first decentral identifier and data related to the at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain (Guinard: ¶¶ 0019 and 0067 “the computer system may associate the unique identifier and the globally unique product identifier one-to-one or many-to-one with an NFT based at least in part on a smart contract”); and
providing the product passport for access by a data consuming service under control of a data providing service associated with a data owner (Guinard: ¶¶ 0019, 0020, 0067 “the computer system may provide the NFT intended for the electronic device associated with a recipient, where the NFT facilitates management of the globally unique product identifier”, 0086 “identification technique may also allow a single globally unique product identifier to be deployed using multiple graphical representations throughout the lifetime of a product and/or may allow globally unique product identifiers to be transferred between owners in a safe, secure and trusted manner” and 0135).
While Guinard does state the globally unique product identifiers is associated with the electronic device (Guinard: ¶ 0015), Guinard fails to specifically state the association with at least one first physical entity. Guinard further fails to teach providing the identifier to a product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry. The Examiner provides Kim to teach and disclose these claimed features.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Kim includes:
receiving a request to provide a first decentral identifier associated with at least one first physical entity (Kim: ¶ 0095 “a Decentralized Identifier (DID) and a serial number (S/N) of the object (i.e., the product), owners of which are to be managed, may be generated and assigned, and may be registered, together with the product registration VC, in the blockchain 20”)
providing the first decentral identifier to a product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry (Kim: ¶¶ 0046, 0063, 0095, 0104 and 0105);
wherein the at least one authentication data registry is configured to authenticate access by the data consuming service (Kim: ¶ 0105, post-solution activity, non-limiting step).
Guinard teaches a system and method for decentralized generation and management of product identifiers. Kim teaches a comparable system and method for decentralized generation and management of product identifiers that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Kim offers the embodiment of a first decentral identifier associated with at least one first physical entity and providing the first decentral identifier to a product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the specific physical entity association and the providing steps as disclosed by Kim to the associations to the identifier and the providing steps as taught by Guinard for the predicted result of improved system and method for decentralized generation and management of product identifiers. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 2 and 14, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard includes:
An apparatus for producing a product associated with a product passport, wherein the product comprises at least one first physical entity of a product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain, the apparatus comprising (Guinard: Abstract and Fig. 1):
at least one collector configured to collect product data associated with at least one first physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain, wherein the at least one first physical entity comprises at least one physical identifier (Guinard: ¶¶ 0067 “the computer system may receive a unique identifier for a product associated with the electronic device” and 0150-0151);
at least one assignor configured to assign the physical identifier to a first decentral identifier for generating the product passport associated with the at least one first physical entity (Guinard: ¶¶ 0067 “receive a unique identifier for a product associated with the electronic device. Then, the computer system may generate, in a decentralized manner, a globally unique product identifier for the product based at least in part on a smart contract. Moreover, the computer system may associate the unique identifier and the globally unique product identifier one-to-one or many-to-one with an NFT based at least in part on a smart contract” and 0086); and
a product passport generator configured to generate the product passport by receiving a request to provide at least the first decentral identifier associated with product data of the at least one first physical entity and in response to the request, generating the product passport including the first decentral identifier and data related to the product data of the at least one first physical entity (Guinard: ¶ 0067 “the computer system may associate the unique identifier and the globally unique product identifier one-to-one or many-to-one with an NFT based at least in part on a smart contract. Next, the computer system may provide the NFT intended for the electronic device associated with a recipient, where the NFT facilitates management of the globally unique product identifier”).
While Guinard teaches that an identifier of the product is collected (Guinard: ¶ 0067), Guinard fails to specifically teach a physical identifier. Guinard further fails to teach wherein the first decentral identifier is provided to the product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry, and wherein the at least one authentication data registry is configured to authenticate access by a data consuming service. The Examiner provides Kim to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Kim includes:
a physical identifier (Kim: ¶¶ 0045-0048 “check product-related information, such as the S/N of the product, a product registration VC retrieval ID, manufacturer information, and a product image, by reading the QR code enclosed with the purchased product using the user terminal device 10”)
wherein the first decentral identifier is provided to the product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry, and wherein the at least one authentication data registry is configured to authenticate access by a data consuming service (Kim: ¶¶ 0046, 0063, 0095, 0104 and 0105, the authenticating step is post-solution activity and not limiting)
Guinard teaches a system and method for decentralized generation and management of product identifiers. Kim teaches a comparable system and method for decentralized generation and management of product identifiers that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Kim offers the embodiment of a physical identifier and wherein the first decentral identifier is provided to the product passport generator and to at least one authentication data registry, and wherein the at least one authentication data registry is configured to authenticate access by a data consuming service. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the physical identifier and the providing steps as disclosed by Kim to the collected identifier and the providing steps as taught by Guinard for the predicted result of improved system and method for decentralized generation and management of product identifiers. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein at least one second decentral identifier associated with a second physical entity is provided, wherein the first decentral identifier associated with the first physical entity is connected to the at least one second decentral identifier associated with the second physical entity, wherein based on the first decentral identifier, the at least one second decentral identifier and a relationship representation associated with a relationship between the at least one first physical entity and the at least one second physical entity a concatenation is generated (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein at least one second decentral identifier associated with a second physical entity is provided, wherein the first decentral identifier is associated with the second decentral identifier and/or vice versa according to the a relationship representation (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein at least one second decentral identifier is provided, wherein the at least one second decentral identifier is associated with the second physical entity, wherein the first decentral identifier associated with the first physical entity is connected to the second decentral identifier associated with the second physical entity, wherein the second physical entity is used to produce the first physical entity or the first physical entity is produced by using the second physical entity (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein at least one second decentral identifier is provided, wherein the at least one second decentral identifier is associated with at least one second physical entity of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain, wherein a concatenation is generated based on a relationship representation according to which the first decentral identifier is associated with the at least one second decentral identifier.
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
As per claim 7, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein multiple second decentral identifier(s) are provided, wherein multiple second decentral identifiers are related according to a relationship representation (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein the first decentral identifier is associated with multiple physical entities of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein at least one decentral identifier is provided per physical entity of the product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain, wherein the first and second decentral identifiers are connected according to a relationship representation representing the relationship of the physical entities of the product supply chain and/or the recycling product chain (Guinard: ¶¶ 0010, 0018 and 0099 and Kim ¶¶ 0124-0135).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein the product passport includes a concatenation associated with multiple decentral identifiers based on a relationship representation representing the relationship of the physical entities in the product supply chain and/or a recycling product chain (Guinard: ¶ 0099).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein one or more hash value(s) are generated based on a relationship representation (Guinard: ¶ 0124).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
wherein the product passport includes one or more second decentral identifier(s) and/or the concatenation (Guinard: ¶¶ 0099 and 0124).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 15 and 18, the claimed subject matter that is met by Guinard and Kim includes:
A computer-implemented method for using a product passport, the method comprising the steps: receiving a request to access and/or process the product passport associated with a first decentral identifier as generated according to the method of claim 13; authenticating, via at least one authentication data registry, the product passport and/or the request to access and/or process the product passport; based on the product passport and optionally the authentication, providing access to product data associated with at least one decentral identifier of the product passport (Guinard: ¶¶ 0018, 0099 and 0117).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Guinard and Kim are discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 13, and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights