DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 09.05.2024. Claims 1-11 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-11 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Priority / Filing Date
4. Applicant's claim for priority of the CIP of 17/607,039 Application filed on 10.28.2021 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the CIP date of 10.28.2021 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: claims 1-11 are directed to a method of tracking a product history using blockchain technology, which involves collecting and analyzing information about the product history, and organizing that information in a blockchain. The claims appear to fall under the grouping of abstract idea related to mental processes “collecting and analyzing information” and or “method of organizing human activities.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of tracking a product history. Claim 1 is directed to a series of data collection, data storage, data transfer, and data association operations. The claim falls under certain methods of mental processes and/or organizing human activity.
Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
storing information in a data storage system;
uploading product identifiers as data;
generating record blocks based on identifiers;
downloading data (component record blocks);
associating component information with corresponding product information;
uploading component data;
linking or adding one data record to another; and
tracking product history through stored and linked data records.
These limitations describe organizing, storing, transmitting, and associating information, which fall within recognized categories of abstract ideas of:
Certain methods or organizing human activity (e.g., product tracking and record-keeping);
Mental processes (e.g., organizing information, associating information).
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and including a method of tracking a product history using blockchain technology fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or legal interactions, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical relationships/formula, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes the concept of a method of tracking a product history using blockchain technology using generally recited computer elements such as a main data storage system, an external data storage system, a main blockchain, an external blockchain, a main production and marketing unit. These additional elements of a main data storage system, an external data storage system, a main blockchain, an external blockchain, a main production and marketing unit, in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for tracking a product history. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Business Practices or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. These elements (data storage, external data storage, blockchain, and production and marketing unit) are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g., storing, receiving, transmitting, uploading, downloading, and linking information).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of tracking product history, which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a method of tracking a product history using blockchain technology) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-11 define the same abstract idea noted above for independent claim 1, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-11 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Therefore, the limitations of the claimed invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter. To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen et al., WO 2023/044128 A1 in view of Vargas et al., WO 2020/198333 A1, in view of Nazzari, Pub. No.: US 2014/0330685, and further in view of Moeller, EP 3422267.
As per claims 1, 2, and 7-11, Mullen discloses a method for tracking a product history [see at least ¶0073 (e.g., tracking information as well as shipping address or any other information associated with the collectible, any transaction associated with the shipping, or the shipping itself maybe included (e.g., verification the shipment was received may be stored in the data structure), and ¶0185 (e.g. Information 2031 may be provided and may include information about the product grouping as well as the specific item. For example, information 2031 may include detailed information about the collectible product grouping (e.g. , date of manufacture, rarity, manufacturer, collectible artist, etc. ) as well as information associated with the specific collectible item (e.g. , date of origin on the platform, grade and grade history, authentication and authentication history, sub-grades, date of grades and authentication, type of encapsulation case, storage location such as storage country, state, city, or any other information. History information may be provided and may include history about the provenance of a specific collectible, the transaction history of a specific collectible, the grading and authentication history of a specific collectible, as well as any other information)], comprising the steps of: storing a main block chain in a main data storage system and storing an external block chain in an external data storage system [see at least ¶0006 (e.g., data, such as ownership data of a collectible, may be stored in one or more different types of systems (e.g. , ledgers that utilize unique numbers, or token, to describe each unique item, ledgers that utilize non-fungible tokens on private blockchains, ledgers that utilize non-fungible tokens on public blockchain, and any combination thereof) . For example, a ledger may be a private database ledger or and/or private blockchain ledger is provided where a unique identifier (e.g., a token such as a non-fungible token) is provided for each item), and ¶0097 (e.g., processors 601 may, for example, include secure data storage (e.g., secure flash and/or secure ROM))];
uploading a plurality of product identifiers of a specific product to the main block chain by a main production and marketing unit which is associated with the product [see at least ¶0006 (e.g. a ledger may be a private database ledger or and/or private blockchain ledger is provided where a unique identifier (e.g., a token such as a non-fungible token) is provided for each item. The unique identifier may be utilized to retrieve information associated with the item such as the previous and current owners of the item, the transaction types and prices (if applicable) for the item, as well as any other information (e.g., name of item, year of manufacture, product, product set or grouping, detailed description, images, etc.). Accordingly, when a collectible item is first received, a unique identifier (e.g., NET) may be created or assigned to the received item and the name of the submitting owner may be associated with this unique identifier. For example, the information may be stored or an information retrievable link may be stored in the NET or in a data structure associated with the unique identifier)];
a plurality of product record blocks are generated based on the product identifiers respectively and are stored in the main block chain [see at least ¶0068 (e.g., a unique identifier may be confirmed manually or autonomously as being the same identifier submitted by the submitter and may be record in a data structure associated with the collectible which may also have its own unique item identifier. Accordingly, a data structure may house multiple unique identifiers across multiple entities (e.g., the receiving entity and a third-party entity) so that these identifiers may be utilized in various processes across various entities)]; and
wherein in the uploading of the product identifiers, a plurality of component record blocks are downloaded from the external block chain by the main production and marketing unit [see at least ¶007 (e.g., user may be required to place an identification marketing (e.g., a sticker) with each item to identify the item), and ¶0222 (e.g., marketing/branding indicia)];
the component record blocks are corresponded to a specific component of the product [see at least ¶0155 (e.g., user may also utilize an interactive action, for example, to add a collectible product and/or a specific collectible item to their own wishlist such that a user may view their wishlist and see a list of products and/or specific items the user desires to follow)].
Mullen discloses all elements per claims invention as exclaimed above. Mullen does not explicitly disclose that the component record blocks are further uploaded to the main block chain by the main production and marketing unit, and are connected or added to a specific product record block in the main block chain. However, Vargas discloses a specific customer or user and the product information is uploaded to the distributed ledger by a third party, i.e., source application provider [see at least ¶0016]. Also, Vargas discloses that the distributed ledgers include, but are not limited to, blockchain, cryptocurrencies, BigchainDB, IOTA Tangle, Flyperledger, and Fledera. [0059] "Source application provider", as used herein, refers to the entity or platform that uploads the product information into the distributed ledger [see at least ¶0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Vargas in order to provide an application of distributed ledgers (e.g., blockchain), is product tracking and verification. Distributed ledgers can be used to verify the point of origin for a particular product and can also be used to trace the product throughout its useful live while enabling a clear transfer of ownership to take place at each stage of the product's lifecycle. Anyone with access to a distributed ledger associated with a particular product may be able to identify a point in the product's history indicating where the product came from, who owned it last, and so forth, provided an effective technique for guaranteeing that the distributed ledger is updated at each link of the supply chain [see Vargas: ¶0011].
Nazzari, on the other hand, discloses asset tracking and management, an end-user device obtains a user identifier, a tracking unit identifier, and an asset identifier. The end-user device sends these items to a server. Upon receipt, the server verifies that the tracking unit identifier is valid, available, and assigned to the user. When verified, the server associates the tracking unit identifier with the asset identifier and the user identifier, and marks the tracking unit identifier applied [see at least the abstract]. Furthermore, Nazzari discloses a centrally-managed database (e.g., management service 102) may track maintenance history, maintenance schedules, repair history, update history, update schedules, the like [see at least ¶0074], and history option 504 may be used to access historical information, such as historical information for a user, a tracking unit, or an asset [see at least ¶0117].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Nazzari in order to provide an asset tracking and management, and more particularly to asset tracking using a harmonizing code that is associated with an asset directly, or with a tracking unit that is attached to the asset [see Nazzari: ¶0001].
The combination above did not disclose each section contains an encrypted hash value. However, Moeller discloses each section contains an encrypted hash value [see at least page 3, ¶0008 (e.g., The transaction record may be sent from a gateway to a server (e.g., residing within a network cloud). Each transaction record may include a one-way hash of, and a reference (e.g., link or pointer) to, an immediately preceding transaction record for the overall system (e.g., network) for which information is being tracked. A hash of a transaction record is the output of a mathematical function, algorithm or transformation (hereinafter "hash function") applied to the transaction record. The hash function may be configured to produce a hash value that can be represented by a data structure (e.g., a string) of uniform size or range of sizes. In some embodiments of the system described herein, the hash is a one-way hash in that the hash function that produced the hash value (hereinafter a "cryptographic hash function") is infeasible to invert. By making the one-way hash part of the next (i.e., current) transaction record, it can be determined if an immediately preceding record has been altered because the one-way hash generated from the altered transaction record will not match what is stored in the next transaction in the chain. Furthermore, in embodiments of the system described herein, each transaction record includes a one-way hash of, and a reference (e.g., link or pointer) to an immediately preceding transaction record, forming a continuingly growing temporal list of records referred to herein as a record chain. Altering any transaction record in the record chain will have a cascading effect changing the expected one-way hash of every future transaction record, such that the source altered record can be determined. Thus, using a one-way hash function enables, along with other features described herein, reliable tracking of device information in a system. Any of a variety of cryptographic hash functions may be used, for example, MD4, MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-2)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Moeller in order to provide a mechanism to reliably track and maintain data for components of systems in instances where components are provided and integrated by different, often unrelated, suppliers [see Moeller: ¶0004].
As per claim 3, Mullen discloses wherein the main production and marketing unit serves to perform a main manufacturing process for the product; the main manufacturing process has a plurality of producing stages; the main production and marketing unit includes a plurality of product data generating devices and a plurality of product data reading devices; the product identifiers are uploaded to the main block chain by the product data reading devices; wherein each of the producing stages of the main manufacturing process of the main production and marketing unit is corresponded to a corresponding identification data generating device and a corresponding product data reading device; each of the product identifiers is generated by a corresponding product data generating device in a corresponding producing stage of the main manufacturing process to be assigned to the product; each of the product data reading devices serves to read a corresponding product identifier in the corresponding producing stage and upload the corresponding product identifier to the main block chain; the product identifiers uploaded to the main block chain are encrypted to generate the product record blocks; and wherein an external block chain loading device is installed in one of the product data reading devices of the main production and marketing unit; the external block chain loading device is connected to external block chain and serves to download the component record blocks of the external block chain into the main production and marketing unit; the product data reading devices having the external block chain loading device serves to upload a corresponding product identifier with a component record block set to the main block chain, wherein the component record block set is formed by the component record blocks and a source block chain address; the source block chain address is an address of the external block chain having the component record blocks; and the product identifier and the component record block set are encrypted to generate a corresponding product record block in the main block chain [see at least ¶0097 for devices, and the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 4, Mullen discloses wherein the component record blocks are uploaded to the external block chain by an external production and marketing unit; the external production and marketing unit serves to perform an external manufacturing process for the component; the component produced by the external manufacturing process is outputted by the external production and marketing unit to the main production and marketing unit to be combined to the product in the main manufacturing process of the main production and marketing unit; the external manufacturing process has a plurality of producing stages; the external production and marketing unit includes a plurality of component data generating devices and a plurality of component data reading devices; the component identifiers are uploaded to the external block chain by the component data reading devices; and wherein each of the producing stages of the external manufacturing process of the external production and marketing unit is corresponded to a corresponding component data generating device and a corresponding component data reading device; each of the component identifiers is generated by a corresponding component data generating device in a corresponding producing stage of the external manufacturing process to be assigned to the component; each of the component data reading devices serves to read a corresponding component identifier in the corresponding producing stage of the external manufacturing process and upload the corresponding component identifier to the external block chain; and the component identifiers uploaded to the external block chain are encrypted to generate the component record blocks [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 5, Mullen discloses wherein each of the product identifiers and the component identifiers is an application identifier, which is a textual or graphical data formed by a specific coding rule [see at least ¶0209 (e.g., a user that identifies the use on a native application on a mobile device))].
9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen et al., in view of Vargas et al., in view of Nazzari, in view of Moeller, and further in view of Marietta, Pub. No.: US 2021/0035189.
As per claim 6, The combination above does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the product identifiers and the component identifiers is a GS1 (Global Standard One) application identifier. However, Marietta discloses [see at least ¶0197 (e.g., Global Standards One (GS1) specifications)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Marietta in order to track trade items, and to scan trade items per Global Standards One (GS1) specifications [see Marietta: ¶0197].
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at 517-272-6790. 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.
/Garcia Ade/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627