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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A claims 1-14 in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
The following non-is a final office action.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected invention.
Claims 1-14 have been examined based on their merits.
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.
Claim 1 recites the claim limitation “means for recording data in an immutable and transparent manner.” However, the claims do not recite corresponding structure for performing the function of recording data. Therefore, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation which includes generic computer elements such as a processor capable of performing the claim limitation.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites “means for recording data in an immutable and transparent manner” without reciting in the claims or specification the corresponding structure for performing the claim limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitation “means for recoding data” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose the required structure for performing the limitation of recording data. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the blockchain network.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As no claim limitation prior to this references a blockchain network.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-14 recite a system and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claim 1 recite: tracking and verifying the authenticity of precious metals, base metals, and other minerals throughout a supply chain, securely store transaction data related to the production, transportation, and sale of said metals and minerals.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite tracking and verifying the authenticity of a product by storing transaction data. Therefore, the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction. As the claims merely recite a business action of managing records of a supply chain by recording transaction data related to the production, transportation, and sales of a product such as metals and minerals to track and verify the authenticity of a product.
Alternatively, the claims also recite a mental process. The claims recite merely a method of tracking and verifying the authenticity of metals and minerals throughout a supply chain by storing transaction data. The examiner finds that a user such as a supplier or manufacturer is capable of mentally, or with the aid of a “pen and paper,” perform the steps of tracking a product such as a mineral or metal through a supply chain and verifying its authenticity based on recorded transaction data.
Therefore, the examiner finds the claims to recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: a system comprising a consortium blockchain platform, and means for recording data in an immutable and transparent manner.
However, the limitations merely 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). Merely utilizing a generic computer system to perform the claim limitations of recording transaction data to be used to perform the abstract idea of tracking and verifying authenticity of a product. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): 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). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more.
Claims 2-14 further narrowing the abstract idea of verifying the authenticity of precious metals, base metals, and other minerals through a supply chain as disclosed by claim 1.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, and 13: various interfaces
Claim 6: the blockchain network comprises centralized and decentralized servers facilitating data flow and communication with the network.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 2023/0351407) in view of Hodges (US 2016/0267489).
Claim 1: Hu discloses a system for tracking and verifying the authenticity of (products) throughout a supply chain, comprising a consortium blockchain platform configured to securely store transaction data related to the production, transportation, and sale of said metals and minerals (Paragraph [0017-0019]; [0025]; [0042-0044]; embodiments, systems, devices, and methods are provided for product certification management based on a distributed ledger. A system for product certification management comprises a network interface, a user interface device, and a control circuit. The control circuit executes a product certification management module that is configured to communicate, as a node of a supply chain distributed ledger and via the network interface, with a plurality of other nodes of the supply chain distributed ledger corresponding to a plurality of entities in a supply chain, wherein the supply chain distributed ledger comprises a plurality of transaction records and a plurality of certificate records, retrieve transaction metadata, verify one or more applicable certifications, and generate as an update to the supply chain distributed ledger a certificate verification record comprising a reference to the transaction record and a reference to one or more certificate records associated with the one or more applicable certifications.),
and means for recording data in an immutable and transparent manner (Paragraph [0042-0044] in some embodiments product and supply chain entity certifications may be tracked and verified automatically via a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Blockchain technology may be utilized to record supply chain events and supply information for product certificate management. One or more of the systems associated with supply chain entities may comprise a node in a distributed blockchain system storing a copy of the blockchain record. Updates to the blockchain may comprise supply chain events such as transfer of items from one supply chain entity to another and one or more nodes on the system may be configured to incorporate one or more updates into blocks to add to the distributed ledger. Distributed databases and shared ledger databases generally refer to databases based on peer-to-peer record keeping and authentication in which records are kept in multiple nodes in the network. Blocks in a blockchain may further be secured by a system involving one or more proof of standard (e.g. proof of work, proof of stake, proof of space)).
Hu discloses a system of verifying and authenticating a product through a supply chain by maintaining a blockchain distributed ledger. However, Hu does not specifically disclose the following claim limitations: tracking and verifying the authenticity of precious metals, base metals, and other minerals
In the same field of endeavor of authenticating and tracking products in a supply chain Hodges teaches tracking and verifying the authenticity of precious metals, base metals, and other minerals (Paragraph [0032] the invention generally relates to systems and methods for providing traceability and supply chain management of a product, good, resource, or the like. For example, systems and methods of the present invention may apply to all types of commodities including metals (e.g. industrial medial as well as precious metals) as well as minerals or other mined goods).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of managing and verifying product supply chain event information in a blockchain as disclosed by Hu with the system of tracking and verifying the authenticity of precious metals, base metals, and other minerals as taught by Hodges (Hodges [0032]). With the motivation of helping to securely validate and track transactions of products in a supply chain (Hodges [0004]).
Claim 2: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses further comprising various interfaces for mineral sourcing entities, authentication agencies, exporters, importers, manufacturers, and end-buyers to input, verify, and view transaction data (Paragraph [0017-0018]; [0023]; [0025-0027]; [0038] generally speaking various systems are provided for product certification management based on a distributed ledger. In one embodiment, a system comprises a network interface, a user interface device, and a control circuit coupled to the network interface and the user interface device. The user interface device may execute an application for accessing a GUI for interacting with the product information graphical user interface provided by the computer system. In some embodiments, the computer instructions may cause the control circuit to provide a user interface for viewing product certification information. In some embodiments, certificate records may be added to the distributed ledger by an agency or the recipient of the certification (e.g. farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation services, seller, etc.). The computer system may provide via the user interface device a certification uploading user interface. Users of the user interface may include government regulatory agencies, suppliers, carriers, retailers, and auditors. In some embodiments, the user interface may be configured to display different information/reports based on user type and/or configuration).
Claim 3: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 2. Hu further discloses wherein said interfaces are comprised of data fields tailored to capture specifics relevant to each entity's role within the supply chain, a user declaration section for affirming the accuracy of the input data, and a submission mechanism to initiate data verification processes (Paragraph [0017-0018]; [0023]; [0025-0027]; [0038] generally speaking various systems are provided for product certification management based on a distributed ledger. In one embodiment, a system comprises a network interface, a user interface device, and a control circuit coupled to the network interface and the user interface device. The user interface device may execute an application for accessing a GUI for interacting with the product information graphical user interface provided by the computer system. In some embodiments, the computer instructions may cause the control circuit to provide a user interface for viewing product certification information. In some embodiments, certificate records may be added to the distributed ledger by an agency or the recipient of the certification (e.g. farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation services, seller, etc.). The computer system may provide via the user interface device a certification uploading user interface. Users of the user interface may include government regulatory agencies, suppliers, carriers, retailers, and auditors. In some embodiments, the user interface may be configured to display different information/reports based on user type and/or configuration).
Claim 4: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses wherein the consortium blockchain comprises and utilizes a consensus algorithm 310, enabling verification of input data by multiple members prior to appending to the blockchain (Paragraph [0042-0044] in some embodiments product and supply chain entity certifications may be tracked and verified automatically via a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Blockchain technology may be utilized to record supply chain events and supply information for product certificate management. One or more of the systems associated with supply chain entities may comprise a node in a distributed blockchain system storing a copy of the blockchain record. Updates to the blockchain may comprise supply chain events such as transfer of items from one supply chain entity to another and one or more nodes on the system may be configured to incorporate one or more updates into blocks to add to the distributed ledger. Distributed databases and shared ledger databases generally refer to databases based on peer-to-peer record keeping and authentication in which records are kept in multiple nodes in the network. Blocks in a blockchain may further be secured by a system involving one or more proof of standard (e.g. proof of work, proof of stake, proof of space)).
Claim 5: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses further comprising a method to record and validate every phase of the mineral's journey, ensuring ethically and sustainably sourced and produced minerals (Paragraph [0042-0044] in some embodiments product and supply chain entity certifications may be tracked and verified automatically via a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Blockchain technology may be utilized to record supply chain events and supply information for product certificate management. One or more of the systems associated with supply chain entities may comprise a node in a distributed blockchain system storing a copy of the blockchain record. Updates to the blockchain may comprise supply chain events such as transfer of items from one supply chain entity to another and one or more nodes on the system may be configured to incorporate one or more updates into blocks to add to the distributed ledger. Distributed databases and shared ledger databases generally refer to databases based on peer-to-peer record keeping and authentication in which records are kept in multiple nodes in the network. Blocks in a blockchain may further be secured by a system involving one or more proof of standard (e.g. proof of work, proof of stake, proof of space)).
Claim 6: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses wherein the blockchain network comprises centralized and decentralized servers facilitating data flow and communication within the network (Paragraph [0023]; [0044]; Fig. 1, the computer system may comprise one or more a server, a backend system, a central computing system, and the like).
Claim 7: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses further comprising cryptographic links connecting individual nodes of the blockchain, ensuring security and data integrity (Paragraph [0033-0035]; [0042-0044] in some embodiments product and supply chain entity certifications may be tracked and verified automatically via a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Blockchain technology may be utilized to record supply chain events and supply information for product certificate management. One or more of the systems associated with supply chain entities may comprise a node in a distributed blockchain system storing a copy of the blockchain record. Updates to the blockchain may comprise supply chain events such as transfer of items from one supply chain entity to another and one or more nodes on the system may be configured to incorporate one or more updates into blocks to add to the distributed ledger. Distributed databases and shared ledger databases generally refer to databases based on peer-to-peer record keeping and authentication in which records are kept in multiple nodes in the network. Blocks in a blockchain may further be secured by a system involving one or more proof of standard (e.g. proof of work, proof of stake, proof of space). In some embodiments, the hash in a block of a blockchain may comprise a cryptographic hash. In some embodiments, the supply chain distributed ledger may comprise a blockchain and the system may comprise a node of the blockchain).
Claim 8: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 2. Hu further discloses further comprising a public interface offering end-buyers and stakeholders a limited view of select, non-confidential transaction data (Paragraph [0017-0018]; [0023]; [0025-0027]; [0038] generally speaking various systems are provided for product certification management based on a distributed ledger. In one embodiment, a system comprises a network interface, a user interface device, and a control circuit coupled to the network interface and the user interface device. The user interface device may execute an application for accessing a GUI for interacting with the product information graphical user interface provided by the computer system. In some embodiments, the computer instructions may cause the control circuit to provide a user interface for viewing product certification information. In some embodiments, certificate records may be added to the distributed ledger by an agency or the recipient of the certification (e.g. farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation services, seller, etc.). The computer system may provide via the user interface device a certification uploading user interface. Users of the user interface may include government regulatory agencies, suppliers, carriers, retailers, and auditors. In some embodiments, the user interface may be configured to display different information/reports based on user type and/or configuration).
Claim 9: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 8. Hu further discloses wherein the public interface provides access to said transaction details via a block explorer functionality, revealing transaction metadata without exposing sensitive information (Paragraph [0033-0035]; [0042-0044] in some embodiments product and supply chain entity certifications may be tracked and verified automatically via a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Blockchain technology may be utilized to record supply chain events and supply information for product certificate management. One or more of the systems associated with supply chain entities may comprise a node in a distributed blockchain system storing a copy of the blockchain record. Updates to the blockchain may comprise supply chain events such as transfer of items from one supply chain entity to another and one or more nodes on the system may be configured to incorporate one or more updates into blocks to add to the distributed ledger. Distributed databases and shared ledger databases generally refer to databases based on peer-to-peer record keeping and authentication in which records are kept in multiple nodes in the network. Blocks in a blockchain may further be secured by a system involving one or more proof of standard (e.g. proof of work, proof of stake, proof of space). In some embodiments, the hash in a block of a blockchain may comprise a cryptographic hash. In some embodiments, the supply chain distributed ledger may comprise a blockchain and the system may comprise a node of the blockchain).
Claim 10: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses wherein each transaction data point is associated with a unique QR code, enabling end-users to access specific transaction details (Paragraph [0027]; [0036]; Fig. 1, in some embodiments, the updates of the supply chain events may be automatically triggered at one or more computer systems by fulfillment of conditions in a smart contract and/or based on departure or arrival scans of products by a scanning device such as an optical code (e.g. QR code), etc.).
Claim 11: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 2. Hu further discloses comprising a method for securing data input and retrieval, ensures that data is both accurate at the source and remains unaltered through the system's processes (Paragraph [0027-0028]; [0042-0044] in some embodiments product and supply chain entity certifications may be tracked and verified automatically via a distributed ledger such as a blockchain. Blockchain technology may be utilized to record supply chain events and supply information for product certificate management. One or more of the systems associated with supply chain entities may comprise a node in a distributed blockchain system storing a copy of the blockchain record. Updates to the blockchain may comprise supply chain events such as transfer of items from one supply chain entity to another and one or more nodes on the system may be configured to incorporate one or more updates into blocks to add to the distributed ledger. Distributed databases and shared ledger databases generally refer to databases based on peer-to-peer record keeping and authentication in which records are kept in multiple nodes in the network. Blocks in a blockchain may further be secured by a system involving one or more proof of standard (e.g. proof of work, proof of stake, proof of space)).
Claim 12: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses designed for application and use by producers, traders, dealers, manufacturers, regulatory bodies, auditors, end-buyers, and other third-party verifiers within the mineral industry (Paragraph [0017-0018]; [0023]; [0025-0027]; [0038] generally speaking various systems are provided for product certification management based on a distributed ledger. In one embodiment, a system comprises a network interface, a user interface device, and a control circuit coupled to the network interface and the user interface device. The user interface device may execute an application for accessing a GUI for interacting with the product information graphical user interface provided by the computer system. In some embodiments, the computer instructions may cause the control circuit to provide a user interface for viewing product certification information. In some embodiments, certificate records may be added to the distributed ledger by an agency or the recipient of the certification (e.g. farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation services, seller, etc.). The computer system may provide via the user interface device a certification uploading user interface. Users of the user interface may include government regulatory agencies, suppliers, carriers, retailers, and auditors. In some embodiments, the user interface may be configured to display different information/reports based on user type and/or configuration).
Claim 13: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 2. Hu further discloses wherein the interfaces are modular and adaptable, allowing for seamless integration with existing supply chain operations (Paragraph [0017-0018]; [0023]; [0025-0027]; [0038] generally speaking various systems are provided for product certification management based on a distributed ledger. In one embodiment, a system comprises a network interface, a user interface device, and a control circuit coupled to the network interface and the user interface device. The user interface device may execute an application for accessing a GUI for interacting with the product information graphical user interface provided by the computer system. In some embodiments, the computer instructions may cause the control circuit to provide a user interface for viewing product certification information. In some embodiments, certificate records may be added to the distributed ledger by an agency or the recipient of the certification (e.g. farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation services, seller, etc.). The computer system may provide via the user interface device a certification uploading user interface. Users of the user interface may include government regulatory agencies, suppliers, carriers, retailers, and auditors. In some embodiments, the user interface may be configured to display different information/reports based on user type and/or configuration).
Claim 14: Modified Hu discloses the system of claim 1. Hu further discloses wherein the blockchain platform is further comprised of smart contract capabilities, automating certain processes and verifications within the system (Paragraph [0027-0028]; [0036]; Fig. 1, in some embodiments, the updates of the supply chain events may be automatically triggered at one or more computer systems by fulfillment of conditions in a smart contract and/or based on departure or arrival scans of products by a scanning device such as an optical code (e.g. QR code), etc.).
Therefore, claim 1-14 are rejected under U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hanebeck (US 2021/0272037) Systems for supply chain event management.
Sukumaran (US 2022/0076335) System and method for digitization financialization and digital valuation of precious metal assets.
Vazirizadeh (US 2025/0348829) Tracking and recording transactions of digital assets with physical association.
Saab (US 2019/0251576) Tracking and verifying authenticity of an asset via a distributed ledger.
Hong (US 2023/0081262) Precious metal authentication system and method.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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 on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights