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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 06/21/2024.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 16-19 are newly added.
Claims 1-15 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 3-10, and 16-19
collector. . . configured to collect
assignor. . . configured to assign
generator. . . configured to generate
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a machine, a process, and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . collect chemical product data associated with the chemical product, wherein the chemical product comprises a physical identifier; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could collect data off of a physical identifier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.)
. . . assign the physical identifier to a decentral identifier for generating the chemical product passport associated with the produced chemical product; (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could assign a physical identifier to a decentral identifier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.)
. . . generate the chemical product passport by receiving a request to provide at least the decentral identifier associated with chemical product data of at least the chemical product and (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a chemical product passport by receiving a request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.)
in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data of the chemical product. (claims 1, 10; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a chemical product passport in response to a request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.)
receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with chemical product data; (claims 2, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.)
and in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to chemical product data. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a chemical product passport in response to a request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods activity since they recite a set of steps for maintaining data regarding chemical products which comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform these steps in tracking and certifying chemical products.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
An apparatus for producing a chemical product associated with a chemical product passport, the apparatus comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a collector configured to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
an assignor configured to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a chemical product passport generator configured to (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents merely general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An apparatus for generating a chemical product passport, the apparatus comprising: (claim 2; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
one or more computing nodes; (claim 2; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
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: (claim 2; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer-implemented method for producing a chemical product associated with a chemical product passport, the method comprising: (claim 10, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer-implemented method for generating a chemical product passport, the method comprising the steps: (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 3-9 and 12-19, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 3:
wherein the generation of the chemical product passport includes providing the decentral identifier associated with a physical entity of the chemical product.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide an identifier in generating a chemical product passport; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.
Claim 4:
wherein the decentral identifier is or is assigned to a physical identifier connected to the chemical product.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could assign an identifier to a physical identifier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial entities would perform this step in tracking and certifying chemical products.
Claim 5:
wherein an identifier element containing the physical identifier is physically attached to the chemical product.
The broadest reasonable interpretation merely alters the type of identifier used in the abstract idea above and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 6:
wherein the data related to chemical product data includes one or more digital representation(s) pointing to chemical product data or parts thereof.
The broadest reasonable interpretation merely alters the type of data in the passport used in the abstract idea above and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. Regarding the use of a digital representation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 7:
wherein the chemical product passport includes data related to different classes of chemical product data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation merely alters the type of data in the passport used in the abstract idea above and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 8:
wherein the chemical product passport includes 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.
The broadest reasonable interpretation merely alters the type of data in the passport used in the abstract idea above and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 9:
wherein the chemical product passport includes at least one class of chemical product data that includes access restricted chemical product data associated with the physical entity of the product.
The broadest reasonable interpretation merely alters the type of data in the passport used in the abstract idea above and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 12-19:
These limitations merely “apply” the elements of claims 10 and 10 using a chemical product, a passport, a method, an apparatus, and computing nodes, and therefore do not direct the claims to a practical application of the one or more abstract ideas.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 3-9 and 12-19, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivier, Clement (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180211213; hereinafter "Vivier") in view of Chappell et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20190026685; hereinafter "Chappell").
As per claim 1, Vivier teaches:
An apparatus for producing a chemical product associated with a chemical product passport, the apparatus comprising:
Vivier teaches a system and method for maintaining a record for chemical products and verification based on such. (Vivier: abstract)
a collector configured to collect chemical product data associated with the chemical product, wherein the chemical product comprises a physical identifier;
Vivier teaches a collector in the form of a sensor which may gather information on a product, wherein the information may be scanned from a barcode on the product, and wherein the information may comprise a physical identifier of the product. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58], Fig. 4)
With respect to the following limitation:
an assignor configured to assign the physical identifier to a decentral identifier for generating the chemical product passport associated with the produced chemical product;
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated by a device using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Vivier, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the generation of a decentral identifier for the passport.
Chappell, however, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) Chappell teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Vivier for the benefit of improving trust through an enterprise services platform as well as providing improved confirmation of third-party certifications and ensuring item quality. (Chappell: paragraph [0011, 13]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chappell with the teachings of Vivier to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Vivier in view of Chappell further teaches:
and a chemical product passport generator configured to generate the chemical product passport by receiving a request to provide at least the decentral identifier associated with chemical product data of at least the chemical product and
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data of the chemical product.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 2, Vivier teaches:
An apparatus for generating a chemical product passport, the apparatus comprising:
Vivier teaches a system and method for maintaining a record for chemical products and verification based on such. (Vivier: abstract)
one or more computing nodes;
Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
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:
Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
With respect to the following limitation:
receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with chemical product data;
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Vivier, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the generation of a decentral identifier for the passport.
Chappell, however, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) Chappell teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Vivier for the benefit of improving trust through an enterprise services platform as well as providing improved confirmation of third-party certifications and ensuring item quality. (Chappell: paragraph [0011, 13]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chappell with the teachings of Vivier to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Vivier in view of Chappell further teaches:
and in response to the request, generating the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to chemical product data.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
wherein the generation of the chemical product passport includes providing the decentral identifier associated with a physical entity of the chemical product.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier, wherein the chemical passport may comprise the physical product. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 3, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the generation of the chemical product passport includes providing the decentral identifier associated with a physical entity of the chemical product.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier, wherein the chemical passport may comprise the physical product. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 4, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the decentral identifier is or is assigned to a physical identifier connected to the chemical product.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier, wherein the chemical passport may comprise the physical product. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 5, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein an identifier element containing the physical identifier is physically attached to the chemical product.
Vivier teaches a collector in the form of a sensor which may gather information on a product, wherein the information may be scanned from a barcode on the product, and wherein the information may comprise a physical identifier of the product. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58], Fig. 4)
As per claim 6, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the data related to chemical product data includes one or more digital representation(s) pointing to chemical product data or parts thereof.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier, wherein the chemical passport may comprise the physical product. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 7, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the chemical product passport includes data related to different classes of chemical product data.
Vivier further teaches that the chemical entity data may be associated with different classes of chemical product data. (Vivier: paragraph [0061])
As per claim 8, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the chemical product passport includes 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.
Vivier further teaches that the chemical entity data may be associated with certifying a chemical analysis of the physical item. (Vivier: paragraph [0061-66])
As per claim 9, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the chemical product passport includes at least one class of chemical product data that includes access restricted chemical product data associated with the physical entity of the product.
Vivier further teaches that the chemical entity data may be associated with certifying a chemical analysis of the physical item. (Vivier: paragraph [0061-66]) Chappell further teaches that in order to access the data, the user may be required to provide access credentials which may be verified before a certification of the item may be returned to the user. (Chappell: paragraph [0058-61]) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 10, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer-implemented method for producing a chemical product associated with a chemical product passport, the method comprising:
Vivier teaches a system and method for maintaining a record for chemical products and verification based on such. (Vivier: abstract) Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
As per claim 11, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer-implemented method for generating a chemical product passport, the method comprising the steps:
Vivier teaches a system and method for maintaining a record for chemical products and verification based on such. (Vivier: abstract) Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
As per claim 12, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method to process a chemical product associated with a chemical product passport comprising using the chemical product passport as generated according to the method of claim 10.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 13, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A chemical product associated with a chemical product passport, wherein the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data is generated according to the method of claim 10.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 14, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A chemical product passport including a decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data, wherein the chemical product passport is generated according to the method of claim 10.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists.
As per claim 15, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer element with instructions, which when executed on one or more computing node(s) is configured to carry out the steps of the method of claim 10.
Vivier teaches a system and method for maintaining a record for chemical products and verification based on such. (Vivier: abstract) Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
As per claim 16, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method to process a chemical product associated with a chemical product passport comprising using the chemical product passport generated by the apparatus according to claim 1.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists. Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
As per claim 17, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A chemical product associated with a chemical product passport, wherein the chemical product passport including the decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data is generated by the apparatus according to claim 1.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists. Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
As per claim 18, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A chemical product passport including a decentral identifier and data related to the chemical product data, wherein the chemical product passport is generated by the apparatus according to claim 1.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists. Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
As per claim 19, Vivier in view of Chappell teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A computer element with instructions, which when executed on one or more computing node(s) is configured to carry out the steps of the apparatus according to claim 1.
Vivier teaches that a blockchain record (a chemical passport comprising a digital representation of the product) may be generated using the identifier. (Vivier: paragraph [0044, 58, 77-79], Fig. 4) Chappell, as outlined above, teaches that, when a blockchain record is created for an object being tracked, the system may, in response to a request from a user to generate the record, receive the item ID as well as an item description, materials regarding the item, and certifications regarding the item, and may generate a decentral identifier 350 which is used to access the digital record (the chemical product passport). (Chappell: paragraph [0026, 30-38], Figs. 2A, 3) The motivation to combine Chappell persists. Vivier further teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computing nodes comprising processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Vivier: paragraphs [0045, 49-56], Fig. 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights