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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 01/21/2026 Claims 1-11 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument directed to claim interpretation, 112(b) are persuasive. The corresponding rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection has been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, using claim 1 as representative example, that “a machine-actionable relation” and non-storage passport architecture wouldn’t be capable of being performed by human using pen and paper. Examiner respectfully disagree at least for the reasons of claim interpretation. In this case, the claim language is broad enough to encompass merely generating a request, which can mean drafting a series of text (or even just assign a name) representing what information wishes to be retrieved. Further, the “machine actionable relation” is written as intended use language (see claim 1, “… usable to filter the semantic model, such that the relation provides access to a part of the semantic model that includes information related to the respective at least a part of the product data, wherein the information is not stored in the chemical product passport”). At this level of breadth, this represent nothing more than a description of rules to be followed by the generated chemical product passport, these are merely rules to be followed. No machines functionality is required. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant goes on to make additional arguments related to the architecture, however, as noted above, the claim is broad enough to encompass merely rules to be followed. Therefore, for similar reasons above, they are not persuasive at this level of breadth.
Examiner would recommend (1) providing further detail on the claimed “semantic model” to better illustrate how the semantic model work with the claimed chemical product passport to consummate the advantage described in the specification regarding storage reduction, (2) positively recite the argued “machine-actionable relation” into the claim, and (3) incorporating computer hardware into method claims.
Applicant’s argument directed to 103 rejection are considered but not persuasive.
Applicant first argue the keys are not the claimed relationship. Examiner acknowledge that but notes that Shah also teaches a public key used to access executable file 808 that is uploaded to the ledger (0142), this file provides information that is searchable using machine learning tool to identify novelty with regards to other innovation (0149); these basis for the novelty identification is not stored in the file that was uploaded to the ledger. Therefore, while the previous cited portion may not fully disclose the amended claim language, Shah nevertheless teaches the limitation.
As per Applicant’s further argument, please see above. Examiner notes the difference between Shah and claimed invention, as shown above, is merely on the type of machine learning tool used. As such, the existing combination would still be reasonable.
Examiner recommends providing further detail regarding the claimed semantic model, as well as rewording the claim language to avoid intended use limitation. Examiner acknowledge that if claims are written differently, this combination would need to be reconsidered significantly.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, the following limitations recites an abstract idea.
receiving product data referring to information related to the product and/or one or more pre-products utilized in the production process of the product,
accessing
generating the chemical product passport based on the product data
providing the generated chemical product passport to the production plant.
Examiner notes “usable to filter the semantic model, such that the relation provides access to a part of the semantic model that includes information related to the respective at least a part of the product data, wherein the information is not stored in the chemical product passport” is merely intended use language, which in this case, represents no more than rules to be followed by this claimed chemical product passport. In other words, the limitation merely represents a description of what the chemical product passport can be used for. Further, generating “a request” that follows particular property is broad enough to encompass mentally determination and assign a symbol to it. The above limitations falls into mental process as they’re merely steps that can be performed in human mind using pen and paper exercising determination and judgement. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements are semantic model and that the identifier is decentralized. Both of which, whether viewed individually or as an order combination, are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea on a particular field of use. They would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above in step 2A prong 2, where the analysis still applies to step 2B, the additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are nothing more than generally linking the abstract idea on a particular field of use. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Claims 2-7 merely further limit the abstract idea and therefore recites the same abstract idea. Examiner notes claim 3, at this level of breadth, is broad enough to encompass a simple graph where a few node can represent states (e.g., solid, liquid, or gas), and each node connected to an edge leading to colors of each state (e.g., red, white, or blue for different states). The generated request can be merely comprising an identifier, followed by a state, the state can lead to information (color) not stored in the passport. Such graph with nodes and edges are certainly be performed in human mind with pen and paper. The step 2A prong 2 and step 2B analysis would remain substantially the same and they would not be eligible either.
Claim 8-11 can be analyzed similarly to claim 1 and would arrive at the same conclusion of ineligible. Examiner further notes claim 10 is even more abstract than claim 1 as there is no computer hardware required to perform any of the steps that are intended to be implemented by a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 20170236094) in view of Lee (US 20210304854).
As per claim 1, Shah discloses an apparatus for generating a chemical product passport for a chemical product produced by a production plant, wherein the chemical product passport is indicative of a digital representation of data associated with the chemical product, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more computing processors configured to perform the followings steps:
receiving product data referring to information related to the product and/or one or more pre-products utilized in the production process of the product (see at least Shah, 0117, parent innovation 604 includes chemical property),
generating the chemical product passport based on the product data Examiner notes “usable to filter the semantic model, such that the relation provides access to a part of the semantic model that includes information related to the respective at least a part of the product data, wherein the information is not stored in the chemical product passport” is an intended use language; in this case, the keys, such as public key, is capable of being sued to provide access and its information (see 0151) for information not stored on itself (see 0149)), and
providing the generated chemical product passport
Shah does not explicitly disclose providing information on the ledger to a production plant, but indicated that information, when authorized, can be provided to “any outside company” (0150). Shah also provided examples of innovation may involve chemical compounds (0011), as well as, providing examples that some end product involves fabrication (0174).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply fabrication entity to a chemical product for the purpose of make and use of the innovation generated by inventor.
Shah does not explicitly disclose using a semantic model to generate information related to a given input data. Lee, however, teaches access a semantic model to generate property of chemical product (see at least Lee, 0057, database can store generated candidate drug compound such as semantic information and chemical information via AI engine.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Lee’s AI learning model that generates product data based on semantic input with Shah’s blockchain storing chemical property of product for the purpose of storing more relevant information efficiently.
As per claim 2, Shah does not but Lee teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the semantic model comprises a graph database in which the data related to at least a part of the product data is organized (see at least Lee, 0158, knowledge graph encoding being used)
As per claim 3, Shah does not but Lee teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the generating of the chemical product passport comprises selecting the product data provided by the chemical product passport based on a received request, wherein the received request is translated into a graph pattern request and the graph database of the semantic model is filtered for the graph pattern corresponding to the graph pattern request and the chemical data provided by the chemical product passport is selected based on the filtered graph pattern (see at least Lee, 0185 resulting output data (candidate) is based on filtering. See 0162-0163 where graphing model is used as the process).
As per claim 4, Shah further discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the chemical product comprises a physical identifier and wherein the generating of this chemical product passport comprises assigning the physical identifier to the decentral identifier, wherein the product data refers to data collected in association with the physical identifier of the chemical product (see at least Shah, 0117, both physical and biological property are stored with chemical property. Examiner notes both physical and biological property represents something exists in physical world).
As per claim 5, Shah further discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the decentral identifier is further associated with a data schema and the chemical product passport is generated to comprise at least a part of the data schema and/or a data schema ID (see at least Shah, 0142, where the blockchain structure used follows particular trust protocol).
As per claim 6, Shah further discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the chemical product passport is associated with one or more authorization mechanisms that refer to the decentral identifier, the chemical product data provided by the chemical product passport and/or the access to the semantic model (see at least Shah, 0144 and 0151 regarding accessing blockchain using key).
As per claim 7, Shah further discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least a part of the product data includes at least one of chemical product declaration data, chemical product safety data, material information and a certificate of analysis data associated with at least one physical entity of the chemical product (see at least Shah, 0117, biological property is part of data stored in blockchain, which is a material information).
Claims 8-11 contains limitations that are discussed above in claim 1. Please refer to the rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 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 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights