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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I A in the reply filed on October 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction since “a search for a wirelessly readable code is not necessarily believed to be different field of search”. In response, examiner would like to state the difference between each species. First, a QR code is a 2D code (square) that requires a short-range communication. Second, a barcode is a 1 D (linear code) code that also requires a short-range communication. Third, an RFID code is a 3D code (chip) that uses radio frequency for communication. Wirelessly readable code can only refer to codes that can be read using long range communication which can be RFID. Therefore, the species are separate and distinct and the restriction is made final.
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 1-2, 5, 7-12, and 15-20 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) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “associating a serialized code to each unit of a plurality of units of a product; storing the serialized code in an electronic product for each unit of the plurality of units; providing a label having the serialized code for each unit of the plurality of units; receiving electronic information obtained of the plurality of units; and updating information stored in the electronic product for the one unit.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components (mental steps, human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “processors” and “memory”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “associating”, “storing”, “providing”, “receiving”, and “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually assign a serialized code to products and storing information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor”, “a memory”, “database” and a “scanner” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 11 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2, 5, 7-10, 12, and 15-20, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 20 define how the serialized code is used to store information which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 8, 10, 17 and 19 (GPS, database) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alsayar et al. referred herein as Alsayar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0406814).
As to claims 1 and 11, Alsayar teaches a method and system comprising:
a computer processor; a memory coupled to the computer processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: associating a serialized code to each unit of a plurality of units of a product; (para 40, 46 and 87, a machine-readable code (i.e. serialized code) is associated with a cannabis unit that is associated with a lot number and to a batch of plants)
storing the serialized code in an electronic product database for each unit of the plurality of units; (para 87, the database stores information associated with the cannabis units that is associated with the machine-readable code)
providing a label having the serialized code for each unit of the plurality of units;(para 199 and fig. 15, the system generates a label that includes the machine-readable code)
receiving electronic information obtained from an electronic scanner that scanned the label of one unit of the plurality of units; (para 189, upon scanning the machine-readable code a list of information associated with the unit is populated)
updating information stored in the electronic product database for the one unit. (para 147, 176 and 199, the system updates the information regarding the cannabis based on the machine-readable code)
As to claims 2 and 12, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teach:
wherein the serialized code is a QR code. (para 45)
As to claims 5 and 15, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teaches:
wherein the product comprises cannabis. (para 40, 46 and 87)
As to claims 7 and 16, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: providing a case pack label containing information needed to access product data for multiple units within a package (para 147 and 199)
As to claims 8 and 17, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: registering a GPS-located data point with each consumer scan of the serialized code. (para 60, the system stores GPS coordinates of the mobile device scanning the machine-readable code)
As to claims 9 and 18, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining a risk of a given product being counterfeit using a statistical risk analysis model based on scan data of the serialized code. (para 176, upon scanning and updating the machine-readable code of a cannabis unit, the system determines if the information associated with the code is for the specific unit and if the information does not match the system determines the risk of the product being illegally sold)
As to claims 10 and 19, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teaches:
wherein updating information stored in the product database comprises: managing data read and write permissions for the serialized code on a per user, per organization, per code, and per code batch basis. (para 147, 176 and 199)
As to claim 20, Alsayar teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Alsayar further teaches:
providing a mobile software application that allows users to scan the serialized code to access supply chain provenance information and verify product safety. (para 138 and 189)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628