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 04/01/2026.
Claims 16 and 27-29 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 04/01/2026:
Drawings
Drawings filled on 04/01/2026 are accepted by the examiner, objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the providing, producing, providing, assigning steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement, nor the “specific implementation” involving a “balancing-unit enforcement workflow” suggested by Applicant.
Claims 16 and 27-29 are directed to the abstract idea of tracking, converting, storing, and conditionally assigning environmental attributes based on availability of stored values, i.e., a data management and accounting process. As the claim recites: converting input material amounts into “balancing units”; storing such units in “balancing accounts”; comparing available units to required units; conditionally rejecting or assigning attributes based on sufficiency; and updating stored balances via deduction.
The claims describe fundamental data processing and resource accounting operations, which fall within the category of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
The mere inclusion of nominal environmental or chemical production context does not alter the underlying nature of the claim, which remains directed to information processing rules for allocation and accounting.
2) Further under the Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is integrated into a “chemical production network” and therefore amounts to a practical application.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims do not recite any technical improvement to: any chemical reactors, and/or process control systems, and/or industrial equipment operation, and/or the functioning of a chemical production network itself.
Rather, the “chemical production network” is recited at a high level of generality and merely provides an environment in which the abstract data processing occurs. The claims do not meaningfully limit how the chemical production network operates, nor does it modify physical production processes. Instead, it governs how environmental attributes are assigned and recorded, which is an informational output.
Accordingly, the alleged integration is merely an attempt to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which is insufficient to amount to a practical application. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
3) Further under the Step 2B – Significantly More
Applicant argues that the claims recite “significantly more” based on an “ordered combination” of converting, comparing, rejecting, and deducting operations.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed operations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to conventional data manipulation steps routinely performed by generic computing systems, including: arithmetic conversion, database storage, conditional logic, comparison operations, and record updating.
These operations are merely apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment of the field of data processing or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The Specification does not describe any unconventional computer architecture, specialized hardware, or improved computer functionality.
The alleged “balancing-unit enforcement sequence” is simply an abstract rules-based decision process implemented using generic computing components.
The Federal Circuit has consistently held that appending conventional computer implementation to an abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24.
4) With respect to Applicant's reliance on distinctions over BSG Tech. and Voter Verified is not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, As discussed above, claims 16 and 27-29 remain directed to generalized information processing and conditional decision-making rules. The fact that the claim is applied to environmental attributes in a chemical context does not transform the nature of the claim into a technological improvement.
Unlike patent-eligible claims that improve computer functionality or technical operations, claims 16 and 27-29 merely uses a computer as a tool to implement abstract data processing steps.
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 and 30 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 27 recites a method, which is directed to a process.
Claim 28 recites a system, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 29 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 managing, allocating and assigning environmental attributes using balancing accounts and identifiers.
1) These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims directed to determining balancing units, maintain balancing accounts, assigning environmental attributes, linking environmental attribute identifiers to product identifiers, comparing balancing unites with account balances, rejecting assignments when balances are insufficient and deducting balancing units when balances are available collectively describe commercial and administrative practices involving accounting allocation, tracking, and verification of attributes associated with products. 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.
2) These claims recite a mental process. The claims recite a mental process of balancing accounts represent records of available environmental attributes, comparing requested attribute amounts against account balances and approving or rejecting assignments based on available balances constitutes managing and allocating resources according to predetermined rules. Such activities are analogous to bookkeeping, inventory management, credit allocation, and other forms of commercial accounting that can be performed mentally or with paper and pen.
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, input materials, chemical intermediates, chemical products,
Claim 28: system, a chemical production network, input materials, chemical intermediates, chemical products, an accounting system, an identifier provider, an assignor,
Claim 29: apparatus, input materials, chemical intermediates, chemical products, 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). In addition, the additional limitations merely identify the environment in which the abstract accounting activity is performed. The claims do not recite any improvement to chemical processing technology, chemical reactions, reactors, manufacturing equipment, production control systems or operation of the chemical production network itself.
The recited steps of determining balancing units, maintaining balancing accounts, assigning environmental attributes, linking identifiers, comparing balances, rejecting assignments, and deducting balancing units are performed using information regarding environmental attributes and do not alter the manner in which chemical products are produced. The claim merely uses information associated with physical products as a basis for performing accounting and allocation activities.
The claims therefor merely apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment and do not effect a transformation of an article, improve another technology or technical field, or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include the chemical production network, input materials, chemical intermediates and products, identifiers, environmental attribute identifiers, and balancing accounts. These elements are recited at a high level or generality and perform their ordinary and expected functions of storing information, associating information with products, and recording balances.
The claims do not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional computer functionality, improvement in data processing technology or technological mechanism for controlling chemical production. The steps of converting amounts into balancing unites, comparing balances, rejecting requests when balances are insufficient, and deducting balances when available are routine accounting operations that amount to no more than applying the abstract idea using generic recordkeeping techniques.
Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea in the context of environmental attribute tracking associated with chemical products. The claims therefor do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 16 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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. 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.
2. 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
Prosecution Insights