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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/11/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 09/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2 and 12, filed 09/11/2026, have overcome the claim objections set forth in the Final Rejection 05/19/2026. Therefore, the claim objections to claims 2 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11, filed 09/11/2026, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection set forth in the Final Rejection 05/19/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 09/11/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s remarks on pgs. 9-10, Myers et al. U.S. Patent 11,374,756 discloses a “smart label,” i.e. cyber label of the claimed invention, that can be used to tag items Col. 4, lines 12-21, Col. 8, line 33-Col. 10, line 19. The smart label, or tag, may have a record in a distributed ledger, i.e. third blockchain identifier, and the non-fungible token (NFT) associated with the same item with the smart label is also generated to represent the item Col. 10, lines 20-24. Therefore, Myers discloses the NFT is associated with the third blockchain identifier, i.e. a record of the tag in the distributed ledger, being linked to the third encrypted cyber label, i.e. smart label. Myers also discloses tracking the manufactured product using the non-fungible token Col. 3, lines 63-65 – “locate and authenticate the apparel item by using the private key associated with the NFT of the token.” The remarks did not specifically address this particular teaching found in Myers. Furthermore, Sriram et al. U.S. 2016/0253622 and Batcher et al. U.S. 2024/0106665 were used to disclose the “generate” limitation, not Myers, and the remarks did not specifically address the particular teachings cited in Sriram that discloses the features related to “generate a third blockchain identifier...” or the particular teachings cited in Batcher that discloses features related to the non-fungible token. Therefore, the remarks cannot be persuasive. For purposes of brevity, please see below for the mapping of the prior art to the claim limitations and associated rationales.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al. U.S. 2016/0253622 (herein as “Sriram”) in view of Batcher et al. U.S. 2024/0106665 (herein as “Batcher”), and further in view of Myers et al. U.S. Patent 11,374,756 (herein as “Myers”).
Re Claim 1, Sriram discloses a system for tracking a product comprising:
a processor Fig. 11, 1110; and
a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause
the processor to Fig. 11, 1120, 1170:
receive a first blockchain identifier associated with a first component product of a first supplier accessed through an encrypted cyber label ([0123] – “scans an existing label (i.e. encrypted cyber label) of a stock keeping unit (SKU) package (i.e. first component product) to determine a first cryptographic address (i.e. first blockchain identifier) and a first private key for verifying ownership of the first cryptographic address,” [0080] – “the SKU packages can become available when shipments from a supplier are received”);
receive a second blockchain identifier associated with a second component product of a second supplier accessed through a second encrypted cyber label ([0124] – “scans a new label (i.e. second encrypted cyber label) to determine a second cryptographic address (i.e. second blockchain identifier) and a second private key for verifying ownership of the second cryptographic address,” “the new label is attached to…a unit (i.e. second component product) within the original SKU package,” [0063] – “the item type can be “components,”” therefore, a package can comprise of multiple components, i.e. first and second component product, [0060] – “SKU package…may also be sourced from components manufactured by different participant entities (i.e. second supplier) in the logistic platform”);
generate a third blockchain identifier operatively linked to a manufactured product manufactured based on at least the first component product and the second component product accessed through a third encrypted cyber label ([0125] – “generates an electronic record to re-unitize the SKU package (i.e. product). The electronic record can refer to a previous electronic record in a distributed consensus network,” an “an electronic record” is analogous to a “third blockchain identifier” because it identifies the transaction within the distributed consensus network, [0119] – “The original SKU and/or the new SKU can represent…a composite of physical…objects,” “Other transformation, repackaging, and/or recombination of…original SKU into one or more units of the new SKU,” i.e. manufactured based on at least first component product and the second component product, [0122] – “A logistic operation on a SKU package, for example, can be for…relabeling,” thereby suggesting the SKU package can be relabeled, i.e. third encrypted cyber label), the third blockchain identifier including the first blockchain identifier and the second blockchain identifier […] ([0125] – “a cryptographically verifiable ledger tracks a first quantity of a first SKU type at the first cryptographic address (i.e. first blockchain identifier) associated with the existing label. The electronic record can specify a transfer of at least a portion of content from the previous electronic record to the second cryptographic address associated with the new label,” i.e. second blockchain).
However, Sriram does not expressly disclose
receive a first non-fungible token operatively linked with the first component product and the first blockchain identifier;
receive a second non-fungible token operatively linked with the second component; and
a non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier.
Batcher discloses an industrial blockchain enabled automation control. Specifically, Batcher discloses
receive a first non-fungible token operatively linked with the first component product and the first blockchain identifier ([0084] – “NFTs can be minted by the supplier entities 702, manufacturing entity 704, warehouse entity 710, and/or retail entities 708 such that data captured in each manufacturing stage can be captured and stored in a public and/or private blockchain (i.e. receive),” [0087] - “NFTs generated for the machine…can be leveraged to perform machine warranty and maintenance tracking…This information can include…identities of any components (i.e. first component product and first blockchain identifier) or devices that were replaced or reprogrammed”);
receive a second non-fungible token operatively linked with the second component ([0084] – “NFTs can be minted by the supplier entities 702, manufacturing entity 704, warehouse entity 710, and/or retail entities 708 such that data captured in each manufacturing stage can be captured and stored in a public and/or private blockchain (i.e. receive),” [0087] - “NFTs generated for the machine…can be leveraged to perform machine warranty and maintenance tracking…This information can include…identities of any components (i.e. second component product) or devices that were replaced or reprogrammed,” thereby suggesting a plurality of NFTs, i.e. first and second non-fungible tokens); and
a non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier ([0048] – “mint an NFT 234…The NFT 234…can comprise a unique identifier (i.e. third blockchain identifier), uniquely associated with the product 242,” [0091] – “each assembled product can be represented by a unique NFT”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of NFTs to track components and products in Batcher. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable the validation of authenticity of the product(s) and allow data captured in each manufacturing stage to be captured and stored in a blockchain Batcher, [0050], [0084], thereby improving overall data security, transparency, and authenticity.
However, Sriram in view of Batcher do not explicitly teach
the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier being linked to the third encrypted cyber label; and
track the manufactured product using the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier and the third encrypted cyber label.
Myers discloses tracking apparel items using distributed ledgers. Specifically, Myers discloses
the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier being linked to the third encrypted cyber label (Col. 8, line 33-Col. 10, line 19 – “smart label,” Col. 4, lines 42-43, Col. 4, lines 42-43 - smart label may be encrypted, i.e. third encrypted cyber label, Col. 10, lines 20-24 – generated NFT is associated with the item that has the smart label, i.e. tag, with a record, i.e. third blockchain identifier, in the distributed ledger); and
track the manufactured product using the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier and the third encrypted cyber label (Col. 3, lines 63-65 – “locate and authenticate the apparel item by using the private key associated with the NFT of the token,” Col. 13, lines 61-63 – “generate a record of the apparel item in a distributed ledger. The record includes a copy of the tag data,” i.e. third blockchain identifier, Col. 14, lines 4-6 – “generate an NFT associated with the apparel item on the distributed ledger record,” i.e. associated with the third blockchain identifier, Col. 8, lines 51-52 – “the tag 202 may be affixed to the apparel item 200,” the tag is the smart label, i.e. the NFT is also associated with the third encrypted cyber label).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram in view of Batcher’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of tracking the manufactured product using the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain and the third encrypted cyber label in Myers. One would be motivated to make this combination to provide a layer of security against counterfeiting, Myers, Col. 2, lines 60-62, allow for verifying the authenticity of the item Myers, Col. 6, lines 24-26, and track and/or authenticate various information about an article Myers, Col. 5, lines 66-67.
Re Claim 2, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 1, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier is associated with a unique product associated with a unique source (Batcher, [0048] – “mint an NFT 234…The NFT 234…can comprise a unique identifier, uniquely associated with the product 242 (e.g., a unique instance of the product 242),” [0092] – “When the product leaves the manufacturing facility and arrives at the next entity in the supply chain (e.g., another manufacturing entity, a warehouse entity, a shipping entity, a retailer, etc.), any new transaction performed on the product at the next entity (i.e. unique source) can be captured in an NFT”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of NFTs associated with products in Batcher. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable the validation of authenticity of the product(s) and allow data captured in each manufacturing stage to be captured and stored in a blockchain Batcher, [0050], [0084], thereby improving overall data security, transparency, and authenticity.
Re Claim 3, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 1, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to track each sale of the manufactured product and information associated with each sale (Sriram, [0040] – “Items that are tracked by the cryptography-based logistic platform 100 can be referred as stock keeping units,” “As a SKU moves down the supply chain, the SKU can pass through a number of hands (e.g., distribution nodes), for example, from a manufacturer, to a distributor, to a wholesaler, to a retailer, and then to a consumer (i.e. sale of product),” [0041] – “The tree of parent logistic transactions can be a source of provenance information that enables the participant devices 106 or the provenance management system 102…to trace or track confirmed distribution nodes that led to the SKU arriving at its facilities,” i.e. information associated with each sale).
Re Claim 4, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 3, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to generate an updated non-fungible token as a function of at least the third blockchain identifier, the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier, and the information associated with at least one sale (Batcher, [0092] – “When the product leaves the manufacturing facility and arrives at the next entity in the supply chain (e.g., another manufacturing entity, a warehouse entity, a shipping entity, a retailer, etc.), any new transaction performed on the product (i.e. the non-fungible token associated with the third blockchain identifier, information associated with at least one sale) at the next entity can be captured in an NFT (i.e. updated non-fungible token),” [0093] – “The NFT 234…can comprise a unique identifier,” i.e. third blockchain identifier).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of updating NFTs to track updates of products in Batcher. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable the validation of authenticity of the product(s) and allow data captured in each manufacturing stage to be captured and stored in a blockchain Batcher, [0050], [0084], thereby improving overall data security, transparency, and authenticity.
Re Claim 5, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 4, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to receive funds from the at least one sale of the manufactured product (Batcher, [0064] – “retrieving an electronic payment for the product 242 according to the smart contract 244”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of retrieving payment for a product in Batcher. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 6, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 5, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to distribute the funds among at least one of a manufacturer, a unique source, and a seller (Batcher, [0064] – “the electronic payment can comprise a transfer of a cryptographic asset stored on a blockchain 230 from an entity or external device to the system 402,” [0056] – “The OEM can use this verified transaction to initiate payment processing,” “the OEM can authorize the production cycle count in the public blockchain ledger based on payment and agreement,” thereby suggesting the payment is distributed to the OEM, i.e. a manufacturer and/or a unique source).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of distributing the payment to the OEM in Batcher. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 7, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 6, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein the instructions further cause the processor to issue a first class of blockchain-based tokens (Batcher, [0092] – “yielding a plurality of related NFTs generated during the production cycle of a unique product”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of a plurality of NFTs generated during the production cycle of a unique product in Batcher. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable the validation of authenticity of the product(s) and allow data captured in each manufacturing stage to be captured and stored in a blockchain Batcher, [0050], [0084], thereby improving overall data security, transparency, and authenticity.
Re Claim 8, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 7, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein each token of the first class of blockchain-based tokens is associated with a yet to be manufactured product (Batcher, [0092] – “mint NFTs that capture events associated with a unique instance of a product 242,” “yielding a plurality of related NFTs generated during the production cycle of a unique product as the components of the product are assembled and/or processed,” capturing events associated with a unique instance of a product via NFTs suggests that there are NFTs that are associate with a yet to be manufactured product).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of minting NFTs to capture unique instances of a product during the production cycle in Batcher. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable the validation of authenticity of the product(s) and allow data captured in each manufacturing stage to be captured and stored in a blockchain Batcher, [0050], [0084], thereby improving overall data security, transparency, and authenticity.
Re Claim 9, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 7, and Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers further teach wherein each token of the first class of blockchain-based tokens is associated with a smart contract associated with the first class of blockchain-based tokens (Batcher, [0065] – “a plurality of smart contracts 244,” [0094] – “a quantity of products 242 applicable to smart contract 244,” i.e. each token associated with a smart contract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of associating tokens with smart contracts in Batcher. One would be motivated to make this combination to enable automatic execution of predefined terms in the smart contract(s) Batcher, [0063-64], thereby improving overall processing efficiency.
Re Claims 11-19, they are the method claims of system claims 1-9, respectively. They recite similar distinguishing features as the system claims 1-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram et al. U.S. 2016/0253622 (herein as “Sriram”) in view of Batcher et al. U.S. 2024/0106665 (herein as “Batcher”), in view of Myers et al. U.S. Patent 11,374,756 (herein as “Myers”) as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of Cella et al. U.S. 2022/0366494 (herein as “Cella”).
Re Claim 10, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers teach the system of claim 9, however, Sriram in view of Batcher of Myers do not explicitly teach wherein a clause of the smart contract entitles an owner of a first class non-fungible token from the first class of blockchain- based tokens to use at least one durable goods.
Cella discloses systems and methods for configuring and launching a marketplace for facilitating electronic marketplace transactions. Specifically, Cella discloses
wherein a clause of the smart contract entitles an owner of a first class non-fungible token from the first class of blockchain-based tokens to use at least one durable goods ([1015] – “The NFT may be used, at least in part to signify an ownership of the asset,” “The extent of the rights including access, licensing, ownership and/or other suitable rights associated with the NFT may be specified by the knowledge provider in the smart contract,” [1869] – “The assets may include physical assets such as property, resources, supplies, materials, land, tools, equipment,” i.e. durable goods).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sriram in view of Batcher and Myers’s system and method for tracking end-to-end provenance of labeled goods with the teachings of using a smart contract to manage the rights to an NFT in Cella. One would be motivated to make this combination to help enforce parties’ adherence to the terms of an agreement and thereby provide a convenient and secure solution to manage access and control restrictions to assets Cella, [0020].
Re Claim 20, it is the method claim of system claim 10. It recites similar distinguishing features as the system claim 10. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
