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 1-2, 5, 7-12, and 15-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed January 28, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-11 were amended, claims 5, 7 and 12-20 were left as previously presented and claims 7 and 16 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15 and 17-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 28, 2026 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15 and 17-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 28, 2026 concerning the previous rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15 and 17-20 under 35 USC 102 have ben fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
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, 8-12, 15 and 17-20 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 unique serialized code to each unit of a plurality of units of a product belonging to a batch; storing the unique serialized code for each unit of the plurality of units; providing a label having the serialized unique code for each unit of the plurality of units; providing a case pack label for a case pack containing the plurality of units, the case pack label having a case pack identifier; scanning the case pack identifier during an inventory receiving process; fetching, from the product database based on the case pack identifier, a list of unique serialized codes belonging to the batch; adding the list of unique serialized codes to a lookup table in a point of sale system; scanning the label of one unit of the plurality of units at the point of sale system; referencing the lookup table to locate a match for the unique serialized code of the one unit; and updating information stored for the one unit to validate that the one unit has been sold.”
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”, “providing”, “scanning”, “fetching”, “adding”, “scanning”, “referencing” 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, 6-10, 12, 15 and 17-20, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsayar et al. referred herein as Alsayar (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0406814) in view of Butler et al. referred herein as Butler (U.S. Patent No. 11,282,031).
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 belonging to a batch; (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)
receiving scan data of the case pack identifier during an inventory receiving process; (para 138, 189 and 205-206)
fetching, from the product database based on the case pack identifier, a list of serialized codes belonging to the batch; (para 209-208)
adding the list of serialized codes to a lookup table in a point of sale system; (para 209 and 228, show that the serialized codes are added to a database at a point-of-sale)
receiving electronic information obtained from an electronic scanner that scanned the label of one unit of the plurality of units at a point-of-sale system; (para 58, 171 and 189, upon scanning the machine-readable code a list of information associated with the unit is populated)
referencing the lookup table to locate a match for the serialized code of the one unit; (para 209 and 228)
updating information stored in the electronic product database for the one unit to validate the one unit has been solved. (para 147, 176 and 199, the system updates the information regarding the cannabis based on the machine-readable code)
Alsayar does not teach:
providing a case pack label for a case pack containing the plurality of units, the case pack label having a case pack identifier;
However, Butler teaches:
providing a case pack label for a case pack containing the plurality of units, the case pack label having a case pack identifier; (col 9-10 lines 63-15, show that the system provides RFID tag to a box of items containing multiple RFID tags)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to provide a case pack label in Alsayar as taught by Butler. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Butler that doing so would allow an easier flow of data associated with the items and the inventory database.
As to claims 2 and 12, Alsayar in view of Butler teach 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 in view of Butler teach 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 8 and 17, Alsayar in view of Butler teach 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 in view of Butler teach 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 in view of Butler teach 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 in view of Butler teach 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights