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 is in reply to communication filed on 06/21/2024.
Claims 16-30 have been added.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/26/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
a) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
1. accounting system (claim 28 and claim 29).
2. identifier provider (claim 28 and claim 29).
3. assignor (claim 28 and claim 29).
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
b) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
1. accounting system (claim 28 and claim 29).
2. identifier provider (claim 28 and claim 29).
3. assignor (claim 28 and claim 29).
as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 16-26 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 27 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 28 recite a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 29-30 recite an apparatus, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 16 and 27-29 recite the abstract idea of tracking environmental attributes in chemical processing, see specification page 4- line 11. This idea is described by the steps of
- produce at least one chemical product based on multiple input materials provided, wherein the multiple input materials are associated with one or more environmental attribute(s);
- provide at least one balancing account associated with one or more environmental attribute(s) of the multiple input materials provided,
- provide an identifier associated with the chemical product, and
- assign at least one environmental attribute from the at least one balancing account associated with the respective environmental attribute(s) to the at least one chemical product,
wherein the at least one environmental attribute from the balancing account associated with the respective environmental attribute(s) is assigned to the identifier associated with the chemical product, wherein the identifier associated with the chemical product includes a chemical product identifier relating to a chemical product specification and one or more environmental attribute identifier(s) relating to one or more environmental attribute(s) of the multiple input materials, wherein for assignment one or more target environmental attribute(s) for the chemical product are provided and depending on the provided one or more target environmental attribute(s) one or more environmental attribute identifier(s) are linked to the chemical product identifier, wherein the chemical product identifier is associated with the physical entity of the chemical product, and wherein the chemical product identifier is a virtual identifier uniquely linked to the specific chemical product.
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to track environmental attributes in chemical processing. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
I. considering historical usage information while inputting data, BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
II. Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claims 16 and 27: chemical production network,
Claim 28: system, a chemical production network, an accounting system, an identifier provider, an assignor,
Claim 29: apparatus, accounting system, an identifier provider, an assignor,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 17-26 and 30 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 16 and 27-29 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 17-26 and 30 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 16 and 27-29 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea, such as networks. However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of tracking environmental attributes in chemical processing, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 16-30, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Distinguished Over Prior Art
The claims, in present form, render the claimed invention allowable over the prior art. The prior art found by the examiner, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the applicant's claimed invention. The examiner has been unable to find the claimed limitations in any prior art. The closest prior art found by the examiner are
Petke et al. (US 6163732 ), which teaches systems methods and computer program products determine compliance of a chemical product to be manufactured to government regulations that govern the manufactured product.
Meadow et al. (US 20180357365 A1), which teaches methods and materials for detecting the origin, source, and transit history of a product, i.e., where the product or its material components were sourced and/or manufactured and/or where such products or components were stored or shipped, as well as information about contact history, including who has handled them or was involved in the manufacturing process, by generating genetic profiles of the product and/or its components, which are used to determine origin, source, and/or transit history, often by comparison to reference genetic profiles.
DWIVEDI et al. (US 20230410017 A1), which teaches a system and method for automatically providing an impact index for a product or a material across a plurality of impact dimension.
Peters et al. (US 20200372557 A1), which teaches systems, methods, and devices for automatic determination of regulatory or business logic classifications of a product based on input data, reference data, and first principles.
Yet, none of the cited prior art teaches the claimed invention as the independent claim 16 and 27-29 recited. A detailed reasons of allowance would be issued by the examiner based on further responses from the applicant. Accordingly, the examiner recommends addressing the outstanding rejections above.
Conclusion
1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627