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 the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites an extra comma in line 8, this appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 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 15 recites an improper antecedent basis. Claim 15 recites a computer program product and is dependent on claim 14 which recites an apparatus/system. Claim 15 recites the same method steps as claim 14 but there is improper antecedent basis for terms:
The request
The test operator
The testing procedure
The sample
The requested sample
The generated sample identifier
The sample identifier
The association
The operator identifier
Because these terms are already recited in claim 14. Therefore, it is unclear as to which terms claim 15 is referring to. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret these to be the same as those recited in claim 14 and that claim 15 is claiming the computer program product to perform these 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-13 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claims 14-15 is directed to a system/apparatus, and therefore is a machine.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A … method for providing and tracking samples of a chemical product provided by a producer of the chemical product, wherein the sample is to be utilized in a sample testing procedure performed by a specific test operator, wherein the method comprises:
receiving a request for providing a sample of a chemical product for a sample testing procedure, wherein the request comprises operator data indicative of an operator identifier uniquely identifying the test operator performing the testing procedure of the sample,
generating a sample identifier associated with and uniquely identifying the requested sample,
assigning the operator identifier with the generated sample identifier to distinctively associate the requested sample with the test operator, and
on receiving a predefined shipping event associated with the sample identifier and indicating a predetermined shipping step is completed by the sample, providing, …, safety data associated with the sample to the test operator based on the sample identifier and the association between the sample identifier and the operator identifier.
The limitation of Claim 13 recites:
A … method for requesting a sample of a chemical product for performing a testing procedure, wherein the sample is provided by a producer of the chemical product, wherein the method comprises:
requesting a sample of the chemical product from the producer of the chemical product, wherein the request comprises operator data indicative of an operator identifier uniquely identifying a test operator performing the testing procedure of the sample,
receiving based on a predetermined shipping event associated with a sample identifier and indicating a predetermined shipping step is completed by the sample,
…, safety data associated with the sample based on the sample identifier and an association between the sample identifier and the operator identifier, and
generating safety instructions associated with the sample identifier based on the received safety data for performing the testing procedure.
The limitation of Claim 14 recites:
receiving a request for providing a sample of a chemical product for a sample testing procedure, wherein the request comprises operator data indicative of an operator identifier uniquely identifying the test operator performing the testing procedure of the sample,
generating a sample identifier associated with and uniquely identifying the requested sample, assigning the operator identifier with the generated sample identifier to distinctively associate the requested sample with a test operator,
on receiving a predefined shipping event associated with the sample identifier and indicating a predetermined shipping step is completed by the sample, providing, …, safety data associated with the sample to the test operator based on the sample identifier and the association between the sample identifier and the operator identifier.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as tracking samples of a chemical product (See specification, par. 0002. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
Computer
Digital communication path
Claim 13:
computer
digital communication path
Claim 14:
apparatus comprises one or more processors configured for performing:
digital communication path
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-12 and 15 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1 and claim 14, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-12 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 5
Tracking system
Claim 9
Shipping system
Claim 15
Computer program product
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirapu Azpiroz (US20220100731A1), “Tirapu” and in further view of Bryant (US20210080441A1)
Claim 1: Tirapu teaches
receiving a request for providing a sample of a chemical product for a sample testing procedure, wherein the request comprises operator data indicative of an operator identifier uniquely identifying the test operator performing the testing procedure of the sample, (Tirapu, Par. 0089; 0086-0087)
Tirapu, in Par. 0089, teaches the food retailer may request a test report at operation 505. In response, a test analysis provider may initiate the test at operation 510. This may include collecting physical samples at a variety of locations in a farm field. The test analysis provider may then execute and validate the local tests with blockchain at operation 515. This may include chemically analyzing the samples using a mobile testing kit and digitizing the results (including the UUID) using the sensing device 410 and the mobile app 420. Using also mobile app 420, the test analysis provider may append their personal user identifier (e.g., user login) and any relevant domain-specific information (e.g., the type of crop being grown, current weather, recent weather events, geographical knowledge, farming knowledge, historical irrigation data, most recent fertilization date, etc.) to the test results. The test analysis provider, from the mobile app 420, may additionally send the resulting data to the blockchain cloud application 430. See also par. 0086-0087, where the retailer subcontracts the agronomic company/farmer to perform the soil test (i.e. request includes specific operator data). (instant application specification recites that operator data can be UUID)
generating a sample identifier associated with and uniquely identifying the requested sample, (Tirapu, Par. 0094 and Table 1)
Tirapu, in Par. 0093-0094 and Table 1, teaches TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 { “Test ID″: 12345, ″USER ID″: ″bob@agrocompany.com″,. The blockchain peer may then authenticate the UUID, represented in Table 1 as “Test ID”, associated with the sensing device 410 and/or mobile application 420 at operation 609. This may include comparing the transmitted UUID to a list of devices 425 that have been previously authorized and calibrated for this test plan. Operation 609 may also include authenticating the mobile device 425, the mobile app 420, and/or the user that conducted the test.
assigning the operator identifier with the generated sample identifier to distinctively associate the requested sample with the test operator, and (Tirapu, Par. 0094 and Table 1)
Tirapu, in Par. 0093-0094 and Table 1, teaches TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 { “Test ID″: 12345, ″USER ID″: ″bob@agrocompany.com″,. The blockchain peer may then authenticate the UUID, represented in Table 1 as “Test ID”, associated with the sensing device 410 and/or mobile application 420 at operation 609. This may include comparing the transmitted UUID to a list of devices 425 that have been previously authorized and calibrated for this test plan. Operation 609 may also include authenticating the mobile device 425, the mobile app 420, and/or the user that conducted the test.
While Tirapu teaches the request, test operator, operator identifier, and sample identifier as cited above, it does not explicitly teach but Bryant teaches the methods of providing and tracking samples of a chemical product provided by a producer of the chemical product, wherein the sample is to be utilized in a sample testing procedure performed by a specific test operator, wherein the method comprises: (Bryant, Par. 0120: tracking and testing of a sample of cannabis product)
on receiving a predefined shipping event associated with the sample identifier and indicating a predetermined shipping step is completed by the sample, providing, via a digital communication path, safety data associated with the sample to the test operator based on the sample identifier and the association between the sample identifier and the operator identifier. (Bryant, Par. 0121; 0120)
Bryant, in Par. 0121, teaches The sample can be transported to a testing location and prepared for the various testing modalities. For example, in block 504, the sample is weighed in a moisture sensitive balance to measure moisture content. Knowing moisture content provides the ability to determine if the sample is prone to growing mold, and the data generated in this step can be uploaded to the BCI unit 400 and/or the cloud server 470 to generate a unique BCI. In block 506, the sample is tested for microbes/pathogens/mycotoxins. For example, the testing can be administered by LC/MS and in a biosafety hood, and the data generated in this step can be uploaded to the BCI unit 400 and/or the cloud server 470 to generate a unique BCI. (i.e. safety data associated with the sample provided via BCI based on the transport(shipping) of the sample)
See also par 0120, An example method includes the steps of analyzing a prepared sample of the cannabis products for microbiological, pathogenic and mycotoxin content, determining whether the sample is safe to continue with other testing. Safety parameters are set based on guidelines according to the Botanical Drug Development-Guidance for Industry outlined in FDA-CDER in December 2016 Pharmaceutical Quality/CMC Revision 1. At any stage of analysis, if the sample is deemed unsafe, then further analysis can be halted. If the sample is deemed safe, then further analysis is conducted. The data generated from the analysis is subsequently uploaded to the BCI unit 400 to generate a unique BCI assigned to the particular cannabis strain and trusted growers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the request based sample testing system of Tirapu to include tracking samples of a chemical product and safety data as a sample travels through multiple stages of testing, as taught by Bryant, in order to provide at any stage of analysis, if the sample is deemed unsafe, then further analysis can be halted and if sample is deemed safe, then further analysis is conducted. (Bryant, Par. 0120)
Claim 2: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the received shipping event is a post goods issue event associated with the sample identifier and indicating the sample has left the producer. (Bryant, Par. 0121: sample has been transported)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 3: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises after receiving the request, validating the request, and performing the following steps based on the validated request. (Tirapu, Par. 0090: validation of the test request with smart contract)
Claim 4: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 3, wherein the validation is based on at least one element of the request, the operator data, and the chemical product. (Tirapu, Par. 0090: validation of the test request with smart contract)
Claim 5: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises utilizing a tracking system for tracking progress of the sample during shipping from the producer to the operator by receiving shipping data indicative of shipping events associated with the sample, wherein the shipping data is associated with the sample identifier and the predefined shipping event is part of the shipping data received as part of the tracking of the sample. (Bryant, Par. 0105: The systems and methods include tracking and testing the seed, the planting, the crop, the product, the treatment and the distribution for ensuring quality control and quality assurance for a safe product for human administration. In some embodiments, data collected from each module are uploaded to the BCI unit 400 and/or the cloud server 470, where the BCI unit 400 and/or the cloud server 470 can generate a unique BCI in a certain predetermined period)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 6: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises after receiving the request, generating a request identifier associated with and uniquely identifying the request and assigning the operator identifier and the generated sample identifier to the generated request identifier, wherein the providing of the safety data is further based on the request identifier. (Tirapu, Par. 0097 and table 4: request ID)
Claim 7: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises generating safety instructions based on the provided safety data, wherein the testing procedure is performed based on the generated safety instructions. (Bryant, Par. 0120: testing for safety; 0118: safety, quality control, and quality assurance practices)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 8: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises generating control signals usable for controlling and/or monitoring the testing procedure performed utilizing the sample based on the safety data. (Bryant, Par. 0118: Determining whether a cannabinoid product is safe for administration or consumption is one of the main purposes of an integrated comprehensive testing module, as it is the last line of defense prior to direct human administration. Safety profile, quality control, and quality assurance will be key to releasing a product for administration. Embodiments include a blockchain platform that includes blocks containing information from certain series of tests. Tests include microbiology/pathogens/mycotoxins, pesticides/toxicants, residual solvents/liquids, heavy metals, terpene profiling, and cannabinoid potency. The sequence of testing has priority, particularly when determining the whether a medical cannabinoid product is safe for human consumption. The system may use a pass or fail system based on standardization of allowed levels of substances. There are industry and governmental agency thresholds for desired and undesired components in foods and drugs that are not permissible for human consumption.)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 9: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises providing the sample identifier and the operator identifier to a shipping system, wherein the shipping system performs shipping of the sample based on the sample identifier and the operator identifier. (Bryant, Par. 0121: transporting and BCI of test sample)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 10: Tirapu and Bryant teach The method according to claim 1 wherein the chemical product from which the sample is requested is associated with a chemical product class identifier, and wherein the generated sample identifier is assigned to the chemical product class identifier. (Bryant, Par. 0137; 0139; 150 chemical classes)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 11: Tirapu and Bryant teaches The method according to claim 10, wherein the safety data associated with the sample is provided based on the association between the sample identifier and the chemical product class identifier. (Bryant, Par. 0137; 0139; 150 chemical classes and quality control practices)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 12: Tirapu and Bryant teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises requesting a result of the testing procedure after a predefined period of time based on the sample identifier and the association between the sample identifier and the operator identifier. (Bryant, par. 0123: lock 520 includes systems and methods for testing the shelf life of a cannabis crop or product. An example method may include storing a sample for a desired period of time and testing for microbes, pathogens and/or mycotoxins; testing for pesticides and toxicants; testing for residual solvents and liquids; testing for heavy metals; analyzing the terpene profile; and testing the cannabinoid content and potency. At each testing step the data produced from testing can be uploaded to the BCI unit 400 to generate a unique BCI associated with the given strain that produced the crop or product. At each testing step the data produced from testing can be uploaded to a cloud server 470 associated with the assigned BCI.)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed to a method. Claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1 and 7 which are directed towards a method. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1 and 7.
Claims 14-15:
Claims 14-15 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 14-15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claims 14-15 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, the computer program product limitations recited in claim 15 are taught by Tirapu in Par. 0182-0184
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights