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 Claims
Claims 1-8 were rejected in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/23/2025. The amended Claimset, entered on 12/22/2025, amended Claims 1 and 6-8. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for (1) continuation of International Patent Application No. PCT/JP2023/011267 filed on March 22, 2023, which designated the U.S., and (2) foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-084682 filed on May 24, 2022. A copy of Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-084682 was entered on 10/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to Double Patenting Rejections for Claims 1-8, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-statutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for Claims 1-8, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to remove the generic placeholders and clarify the subject matter of the present application by reciting a mobile terminal to perform the recited features. Examiner does not fully agree.
Examiner responds that most of the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the previous office action have been removed. However, the system of Claim 6 still recites “an information processing device,” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-8, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Page 9, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. As outlined in the rejection section below, the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 1-8, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 9-11, Applicant asserts that the amended limitations are not taught by Mostyn and Biernat. Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the amended limitations, in light of the interpretation used for examination as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection section, are taught by Mostyn and Biernat as outlined in the rejection section below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an information processing device that, by reading and decoding attached information that is linked to the manufacturing history information and is physically attached to the product, is configured to: acquire the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information from the server; and display the manufacturing history information to the respective user on Claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 1 recites “read and decode attached information that is physically attached to the product, . . . wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the multiple pieces of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user on the display unit, the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user,” at the third through sixth paragraphs. The claim is indefinite as the scope of the claim is unclear. In summary, the claim limits the (1) “attached information” to be read and decoded, and “is physically attached to the product,” (2) the “attached information” includes “displayable range information,” and (3) the “displayable range information” “defines,” “varies,” and “provides.” These limitations could be interpreted as:
(1) The “attached information” is not referencing the physical representation of information itself, e.g. QR Code, but the information which is represented by the QR Code or other physical representation. Therefore, the “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product” would include identifying what information is displayable, which varies based on the process.
(2) The limitation of “wherein the attached information includes displayable range information,” the “attached information” is interpreted as the physical information attached to the product, e.g. the QR code itself, and the limitation that “the attached information includes displayable range information” (emphasis added) is interpreted as analogous to “the attached information contains displayable range information,” i.e. the “displayable range information” is not a physical portion of the “attached information,” but describes the contents (i.e. is “included”) of the “attached information.” Thus, the limitation that “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product” does not require physical variation or modification to a portion (i.e. what would be the “displayable range information”) of the “attached information,” but instead limits the “attached information” to include information that “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product.”
(3) Both the “attached information” and the “displayable range information” are physical representations, e.g. QR code, such that a portion of the “attached information” is the “displayable range information.” Therefore, the physical representation morphs or is modified (i.e. “varies”) based on the process.
For further examining purposes herein, these claim limitations will be interpreted as following interpretation (2) above, i.e. the “attached information” refers to the physical representation, e.g. QR Code, but further limitations on the “attached information,” e.g. “the attached information includes displayable range information,” are not necessarily limitations to the physical representation, but includes limitations on the information that is represented by (or contained or included in) the physical representation, e.g. QR Code.
Claim 1 recites “An information processing device for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user on a display unit of a mobile terminal, the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product, the information processing device comprising: the mobile terminal that is configured to: read and decode attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product; acquire, from a server, the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information that is read by the mobile terminal; and display the manufacturing history information to the respective user on the display unit,” (emphasis added) in the first through fifth paragraphs, i.e. “the First Limitation.” Thus, the “attached information” is linked to the entire “manufacturing history information,” and the entire “manufacturing history information” is acquired and displayed. Claim 1 recites “wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the multiple pieces of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user on the display unit, the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user, the mobile terminal acquires, from the server, the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information, and the mobile terminal displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information.” (emphasis added) in the fifth through ninth paragraphs, i.e. “the Second Limitation.” Thus, the mobile terminal only acquires and displays “the multiple pieces of the process information” that are defined to be displayable in the “displayable range information” portion of the “attached information.” Because the “manufacturing history information” is defined as including “multiple pieces of process information,” it is unclear whether the Second Limitation is intended to limit the “manufacturing history information” acquired and displayed in the First Limitation, or “the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable” is a separate category of information from the “process information” that comprises the “manufacturing history.” Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite, and Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Solely for examination purposes herein, the Second limitation is interpreted as limiting the “manufacturing history information” that is acquired and displayed in the First Limitation.
Claims 2-8 recite similar limitations to those of Claim 1 rejected above (including via dependency), and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with similar justification.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 recite a device (i.e. a machine or manufacture), Claim 6 recites a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture), Claim 7 recites a method (i.e. a process), and Claim 8 recites non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-8 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user . . . , the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product,
. . . [being] configured to:
read and decode attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product;
acquire, . . . , the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information that is read . . . ; and
display the manufacturing history information to the respective user . . . ,
wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the multiple pieces of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user . . . ,
the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user,
. . . acquires, . . . , the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information, and
. . . displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) reading and decoding information attached to a product that is linked to the manufacturing history of that product that includes certain process information, (2) acquiring the linked history, (3) displaying the linked history, (4) displayable range information that varies on the process and defines which pieces of the process information is displayable depending on the respective user, and (5) acquiring and displaying the information defined by the displayable range information, all of which are: commercial or legal interactions (i.e. tracking manufacturing information of a product is at least “sales activities or behaviors”) and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (i.e. manufacturing process records, decoding information, and defining, acquiring, and displaying certain pieces of process information based on the displayable range information are at least “following rules or instructions”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and “observations” (i.e. reading, decoding, acquiring, and displaying certain information related to manufacturing), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “information processing device,” “mobile terminal,” “a display unit,” and “server.”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions,” “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” and “observations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) information processing device,
(ii) mobile terminal,
(iii) display unit, and
(iv) server.
The additional elements of (i) information processing device (Fig. 6 and ¶74 shows “mobile terminal device 12.” ¶38 shows “. . . mobile terminal device 12 is an information processing device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal . . .”), (ii) mobile terminal (Fig. 6 and ¶74 shows “mobile terminal device 12.” ¶38 shows “. . . mobile terminal device 12 is an information processing device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal . . .”), (iii) display unit (Fig. 6 and ¶76 shows “display unit 22.”), and (iv) server (Fig. 6 and ¶84 shows “server 14.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) information processing device, (ii) mobile terminal, (iii) display unit, and (iv) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (i) information processing device, (ii) mobile terminal, (iii) display unit, and (iv) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) information processing device, (ii) mobile terminal, (iii) display unit, and (iv) server, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5 recite the abstract idea of:
“. . . wherein the attached information attached to the product at a particular process defines that (i) the process information on the particular process of the product and the process information on one or more upstream processes upstream of the particular process of the product are viewable . . . and (ii) the process information on one or more downstream processes downstream of the particular process of the product are not viewable . . . .” (Claim 2).
“. . . wherein the process information defined not viewable is changed to be viewable when a predetermined password is input.” (Claim 3).
“. . . wherein the manufacturing history information includes a process related to recycling of the product, and when the processes of (a) returning raw materials through the recycling, (b) manufacturing the product, and (c) recycling the product are repeatedly recorded multiple times, a most recent return of the raw materials through the recycling is defined as a most upstream process to be displayed . . .” (Claim 4).
“. . . wherein the attached information is information on raw materials, information on manufacturing, carbon footprint, due diligence, carbon dioxide emission trading history, carbon tax payment history, information on carbon border adjustment treatment payment history, or a hash value calculated therefrom or a hash value calculated from Merkle root.” (Claim 5).
Dependent Claims 2-5, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-5 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations include that (1) the attached information has certain information viewable and other information not viewable until a password is input and (2) the manufacturing history includes certain information to be displayed, which merely limits the abstract idea. The elements of Claims 2-5 (i.e. “information processing device” of Claims 2-5 and “display unit” of Claim 2 and 4) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely generic computer components similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 1 and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. computer environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-5 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-5, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-5 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-5 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-5 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user . . . , the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product, . . .
configured to store the manufacturing history information;
. . . , by reading and decoding attached information that is linked to the manufacturing history information and is physically attached to the product, is configured to:
acquire the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information . . . ; and
display the manufacturing history information to the respective user . . . ,
wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the multiple pieces of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user . . . ,
the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user,
. . . acquires, . . . , the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information, and . . . displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) reading and decoding information attached to a product that is linked to the stored manufacturing history of that product that includes certain process information, (2) acquiring the linked history, (3) displaying the linked history, (4) displayable range information that varies on the process and defines which pieces of the process information is displayable depending on the respective user, and (5) acquiring and displaying the information defined by the displayable range information, all of which are: commercial or legal interactions (i.e. tracking manufacturing information of a product is at least “sales activities or behaviors”) and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (i.e. storing manufacturing process records, decoding information, and defining, acquiring, and displaying certain pieces of process information based on the displayable range information are at least “following rules or instructions”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and “observations” (i.e. reading, decoding, acquiring, and displaying certain information related to manufacturing), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “manufacturing history display system,” “information processing device,” “mobile terminal,” “a display unit,” and “server.”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions,” “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” and “observations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 6 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) manufacturing history display system,
(ii) information processing device,
(iii) mobile terminal,
(iv) display unit, and
(v) server.
The additional elements of (i) manufacturing history display system (Fig. 6 and ¶16 shows “FIG. 6 is a functional block diagram relating to a display of traceability information in the manufacturing history display system of the present embodiment.”), (ii) information processing device (Fig. 6 and ¶74 shows “mobile terminal device 12.” ¶38 shows “. . . mobile terminal device 12 is an information processing device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal . . .”), (iii) mobile terminal (Fig. 6 and ¶74 shows “mobile terminal device 12.” ¶38 shows “. . . mobile terminal device 12 is an information processing device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal . . .”), (iv) display unit (Fig. 6 and ¶76 shows “display unit 22.”), and (iv) server (Fig. 6 and ¶84 shows “server 14.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) manufacturing history display system, (ii) information processing device, (iii) mobile terminal, (iv) display unit, and (v) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (i) manufacturing history display system, (ii) information processing device, (iii) mobile terminal, (iv) display unit, and (v) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) manufacturing history display system, (ii) information processing device, (iii) mobile terminal, (iv) display unit, and (v) server, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of:
“A manufacturing history display method for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user . . . , the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product, the manufacturing history display method comprising steps of:
a first process of reading and decoding, . . . , attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product;
a second process of acquiring, . . . , the manufacturing history information that is linked to the attached information that is read . . . ; and
a third process of displaying, . . . , the manufacturing history information to the respective user on the display unit, wherein
the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the multiple pieces of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user . . . ,
the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user,
. . . acquires, from the server, the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information, and
. . . displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) reading and decoding information attached to a product that is linked to the manufacturing history of that product that includes certain process information, (2) acquiring the linked history, (3) displaying the linked history, (4) displayable range information that varies on the process and defines which pieces of the process information is displayable depending on the respective user, and (5) acquiring and displaying the information defined by the displayable range information, all of which are: commercial or legal interactions (i.e. tracking manufacturing information of a product is at least “sales activities or behaviors”) and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (i.e. manufacturing process records, decoding information, and defining, acquiring, and displaying certain pieces of process information based on the displayable range information are at least “following rules or instructions”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and “observations” (i.e. reading, decoding, acquiring, and displaying certain information related to manufacturing), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “information processing device,” “mobile terminal,” “a display unit,” and “server.”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions,” “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” and “observations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) mobile terminal,
(ii) display unit, and
(iii) server.
The additional elements of (i) mobile terminal (Fig. 6 and ¶74 shows “mobile terminal device 12.” ¶38 shows “. . . mobile terminal device 12 is an information processing device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal . . .”), (ii) display unit (Fig. 6 and ¶76 shows “display unit 22.”), and (iii) server (Fig. 6 and ¶84 shows “server 14.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) mobile terminal, (ii) display unit, and (iii) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (i) mobile terminal, (ii) display unit, and (iii) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) mobile terminal, (ii) display unit, and (iii) server, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent Claim 8 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user . . . , the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product, . . . [being] configured to:
read and decode attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product;
acquire, . . . , the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information that is read . . . ; and
display the manufacturing history information to the respective user . . . , wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user . . . ,
the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user,
. . . acquires, . . . , the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information, and
. . . displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable . . . as defined by the displayable range information.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) reading and decoding information attached to a product that is linked to the manufacturing history of that product that includes certain process information, (2) acquiring the linked history, (3) displaying the linked history, (4) displayable range information that varies on the process and defines which pieces of the process information is displayable depending on the respective user, and (5) acquiring and displaying the information defined by the displayable range information, all of which are: commercial or legal interactions (i.e. tracking manufacturing information of a product is at least “sales activities or behaviors”) and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (i.e. manufacturing process records, decoding information, and defining, acquiring, and displaying certain pieces of process information based on the displayable range information are at least “following rules or instructions”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and “observations” (i.e. reading, decoding, acquiring, and displaying certain information related to manufacturing), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program . . . causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as the mobile terminal,” “a display unit,” and “server.”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “commercial or legal interactions,” “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” and “observations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program . . . causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as the mobile terminal,
(ii) display unit, and
(iii) server.
The additional elements of (i) A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program . . . causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as the mobile terminal (Fig. 6 and ¶74 shows “mobile terminal device 12.” ¶38 shows “. . . mobile terminal device 12 is an information processing device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal . . .” Fig. 6 and ¶78 shows “The storage unit 32 stores various data such as programs (applications) related to reading the attached information 18 and displaying the process information, and the process information acquired from the server 14.”), (ii) display unit (Fig. 6 and ¶76 shows “display unit 22.”), and (iii) server (Fig. 6 and ¶84 shows “server 14.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program . . . causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as the mobile terminal, (ii) display unit, and (iii) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the (i) A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program . . . causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as the mobile terminal, (ii) display unit, and (iii) server, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program . . . causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as the mobile terminal, (ii) display unit, and (iii) server, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 6 and ¶¶73-86 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is 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 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 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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210383405-A1 (“Mostyn”) in view of US-20190340269-A1 ("Biernat").
Regarding Claim 1, Mostyn teaches the “An information processing device for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user on a display unit of a mobile terminal” (Fig. 1 and ¶96 shows “The environmental impact evaluator 130 is implemented as a computer program product which is hosted by each entity, generally in the same way that the electronic ledger 120 of the entity is hosted, via a computing device [(i.e. information processing device)] and/or a proprietary server [(i.e. server)].” (Emphasis added). Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows “FIG. 4 shows an example of a computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator 130.” See also ¶175 showing “a ‘cloud computing’ arrangement” and ¶105 showing that the method of Fig. 5 uses the “environmental impact evaluator 130” of Fig. 4. Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product. Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit). ¶117 shows that the computing device could be a “point of sale system” including a “barcode scanner” (i.e. mobile terminal).),
“the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product” (¶64 shows “[T]he environmental impact certificate [(i.e. manufacturing history information)] is transferable (and traceable) along with a good as it moves (or is modified) within a supply chain. As a consequence, the environmental impact certificate cumulatively factors the environmental impact values associated with each step in the flow of goods.” Fig. 2 and ¶¶67-72 shows that chronological order that each process (e.g. User A, then User B, then User C) is logged.),
“the information processing device comprising: the mobile terminal that is configured to: read and decode attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product” (¶117 shows that the computing device could be a “point of sale system” including a “barcode scanner” (i.e. mobile terminal). Fig. 5 shows the sequential steps of “Log identity of product [530],” “Identify product from ledger [540],” and “Access environmental impact certificate [550].” Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows “In a third step 530, an identity of the product is logged by means of the electronic ledger 120-2 associated with the entity. . . The transaction record is generated electronically based on a detected transaction and is logged automatically by the electronic ledger, as is known. In some cases, logging the identity of the product may comprise scanning a physical identifier (e.g. a barcode or RFID tag) on or associated with the product, which is either used as an input to the electronic ledger or used to verify a transaction record.” Thus, ¶107 shows that the identity of the product can be determined by scanning a barcode on the product (i.e. read attached information that is attached to the product). Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product.);
“acquire, from a server, the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information that is read by the mobile terminal” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information read)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.); and
. . . ;
“wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” ¶63 shows “As will be detailed later on, the environmental impact value certificate 160 is retrievable by specific other entities (customers) using respective systems 100, by means of the certificate being transmitted to those entities and/or by means of the certificate being uploaded to a mutually accessible database (i.e. a database that is accessible only to prescribed entities).” (Emphasis added). ¶¶113-14 shows “[0113] As described with reference to FIG. 2, the updated environmental impact certificate is then made available [(i.e. viewable)] to the next (downstream) entity in the supply chain. Various methodologies are contemplated by which a downstream entity can receive an environmental impact certificate 160 from an upstream user. Where a certificate database 320 is used, the updated certificate is sent to, and is saved in, this database (which is accessible by the downstream entity). The environmental impact certificate 160 generally includes details of the downstream user (obtained from the electronic ledger 120), but in an alternative may simply reference the upstream user—in which case the environmental impact value estimator in respect of the downstream user identifies the environmental impact certificate 160 in the certificate database 320 by comparing their electronic ledger 102 (relating to the incoming product at the downstream user) and the environmental impact certificate 160 (which includes details of the same product at the upstream user, obtained from the upstream user's electronic ledger 120-1). [0114] The downstream entity may also or alternatively be passed unique identifiers (such as a user name and password) by the upstream user, allowing unique access to the environmental impact certificate 160.” Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises . . . display 1016 [(i.e. display unit)] . . .” Therefore, because the entity identity (i.e. attached information) controls access by a “computer device 1000” with “display 1016” to the process information Mostyn teaches defining which process is viewable by the display unit of the respective user. (i.e. if the computing device can access the information, the information is able to be viewed, and if the computing device cannot access the information, the information is not able to be viewed.).),
“the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” Because the entity identity teaches the “displayable range information,” and that each entity performs a process, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product.” As discussed above, ¶¶113-14 teaches that the entity identity determines which data can be accessed (and therefore displayed). Therefore, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information” “provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user.”),
“the mobile terminal acquires, from the server, the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. “multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach “a display controller that is configured to display the manufacturing history information acquired by the acquisition controller on a display unit” (Although Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit), Mostyn does not explicitly teach that the manufacturing information is displayed.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach, but Biernat teaches:
“display the manufacturing history information to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).) and
“the mobile terminal displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. “the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biernat with Mostyn because Biernat teaches that displaying information stored on the blockchain enables users to receive the advantages of block-chain tracking of manufactured goods (¶111, ¶147, and ¶153). Thus, combining Biernat with Mostyn furthers the interest taught in Biernat, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Mostyn and Biernat teach “The information processing device of claim 1,” as shown above.
Mostyn further teaches that “wherein the attached information attached to the product at a particular process defines that (i) the process information on the particular process of the product and the process information on one or more upstream processes upstream of the particular process of the product are viewable on the display unit and (ii) the process information on one or more downstream processes downstream of the particular process of the product are not viewable on the display unit. ” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows “In a third step 530, an identity of the product is logged by means of the electronic ledger 120-2 associated with the entity. As previously mentioned, the identity of the product may comprise a variety of parameters (depending on the form of the electronic ledger), including the name of the product; the type of the product; the quantity of the product; and an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity. The way in which the product is logged by the electronic ledger again depends on the form of the electronic ledger (and of the particular interaction between the entity and the upstream entity). Generally, the logging comprises either receiving a transaction record from the upstream entity and/or creating a new transaction record, and then then logging the same (including the identity and all other relevant details of the product). The transaction record is generated electronically based on a detected transaction and is logged automatically by the electronic ledger, as is known. In some cases, logging the identity of the product may comprise scanning a physical identifier (e.g. a barcode or RFID tag) on or associated with the product, which is either used as an input to the electronic ledger or used to verify a transaction record. Logging may also comprise recording actual events in relation to the product itself, including receipt of the product at the entity; delivery/acquisition and/or dispatch of a product; disposal of a product; use and/or sale of a product, or any such activity relating to a sub-component/ingredient of the product (in particular where the entity is a manufacturer).” (Emphasis added). The logging operation teaches attaching the “attached information” at a particular process (i.e. manufacturing operation). Fig. 2 and ¶¶67-90 provides an example of three entities, “User A,” “User B,” and “User C,” in a supply chain, each of which may perform multiple operations. Within the Example of Fig 2, ¶¶67-90 includes different means of communicating the “environmental impact certificate 160” (i.e. process information) to each other entity including providing data specific to each operation or merely providing the resulting environmental impact (See ¶69 and ¶¶74-75 showing alternatives and ¶105 showing “environmental impact value data 140” includes “data related to environmental impacts of one or more operations associated with products” (emphasis added).). ¶¶113-14 shows “Various methodologies are contemplated by which a downstream entity can receive an environmental impact certificate 160 from an upstream user,” including a downstream user automatically receiving “environmental impact certificate 160,” or requiring a password for the downstream user to receive the “environmental impact certificate 160.” Thus, Mostyn teaches that “the attached information attached to the product at a particular process defines that (i) the process information on the particular process of the product and the process information on one or more upstream processes upstream of the particular process of the product are viewable on the display unit” because the certificate is automatically transferred to a downstream entity (i.e. enabling the downstream entity to view the processes of the upstream entity). Because Mostyn teaches that some entities, within the ecosystem, require a password to view the certificate (i.e. process information) and Mostyn teaches a specific example of three entities, Mostyn teaches that User B may require a password to view the logged process of User C (i.e. “the attached information attached to the product at a particular process defines that . . . . (ii) the process information on one or more downstream processes downstream of the particular process of the product are not viewable on the display unit.”). Additionally, ¶75 shows that User B does not provide further input (i.e. process information) to determine the environmental impact, making its process information unviewable to User A.).
Regarding Claim 3, Mostyn and Biernat teach “The information processing device of claim 1,” as shown above.
Mostyn further teaches that “wherein the process information defined not viewable is changed to be viewable when a predetermined password is input” (¶114 shows “The downstream entity may also or alternatively be passed unique identifiers (such as a user name and password) by the upstream user, allowing unique access to the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. process information)].” Thus, Mostyn teaches changing information from not viewable to viewable by inputting a password.).
Regarding Claim 5, Mostyn and Biernat teach “The information processing device of claim 1,” as shown above.
Mostyn further teaches that “wherein the attached information is information on raw materials, information on manufacturing, carbon footprint, due diligence, carbon dioxide emission trading history, carbon tax payment history, information on carbon border adjustment treatment payment history, or a hash value calculated therefrom or a hash value calculated from Merkle root” (¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts [(information on raw materials)], quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. information on manufacturing)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶56 shows “The environmental impact quantifies—directly or indirectly—the resources (e.g. water, electricity, fossil fuels, etc.) typically used, as well as the waste and emissions/pollutants (e.g. Carbon Dioxide [(i.e. information on carbon footprint)], Methane, Ozone, etc.) typically produced for a type/class of product or a specified quantity of a product (e.g. the water consumed per kilogram of production of a particular product).”).
Regarding Claim 6, Mostyn teaches “A manufacturing history display system for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user on a display unit of a mobile terminal,” (Fig. 1-2 and ¶66 shows “The system 100, as shown in and described with reference to FIG. 1, forms part of a wider system 200 in respect of multiple entities for recording and communicating the measured environmental impact (i.e. for processing an environmental impact associated with a product in a supply chain); . . .” Fig. 1 and ¶96 shows “The environmental impact evaluator 130 is implemented as a computer program product which is hosted by each entity, generally in the same way that the electronic ledger 120 of the entity is hosted, via a computing device [(i.e. information processing device)] and/or a proprietary server [(i.e. server)].” (Emphasis added). Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows “FIG. 4 shows an example of a computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator 130.” See also ¶175 showing “a ‘cloud computing’ arrangement” and ¶105 showing that the method of Fig. 5 uses the “environmental impact evaluator 130” of Fig. 4. Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product. Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit). ¶117 shows that the computing device could be a “point of sale system” including a “barcode scanner” (i.e. mobile terminal).),
“the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product” (¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good. In this way, the environmental impact certificate [(i.e. manufacturing history information)] is transferable (and traceable) along with a good as it moves (or is modified) within a supply chain. As a consequence, the environmental impact certificate cumulatively factors the environmental impact values associated with each step in the flow of goods.” Fig. 2 and ¶¶67-72 shows that chronological order that each process (e.g. User A, then User B, then User C) is logged.), “the manufacturing history display system comprising:”
“a server that is configured to store the manufacturing history information” (¶94 shows “As will be described in more detail later on, the certificate generation module 138 is configured to generate an updated environmental impact certificate 160 in respect of the operations of the entity 210 on the product, and transmit the updated certificate 160 onwards (to the certificate database 320) such that it can be accessed by downstream entities [(i.e. storing manufacturing history information)].” ¶95 shows “The certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)] is massively distributed across a plurality of servers.”); and
“an information processing device that, by reading and decoding attached information that is linked to the manufacturing history information and is physically attached to the product” (Fig. 1 and ¶96 shows “The environmental impact evaluator 130 is implemented as a computer program product which is hosted by each entity, generally in the same way that the electronic ledger 120 of the entity is hosted, via a computing device [(i.e. information processing device)] and/or a proprietary server.” Fig. 5 shows the sequential steps of “Log identity of product [530],” “Identify product from ledger [540],” and “Access environmental impact certificate [550].” Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows “In a third step 530, an identity of the product is logged by means of the electronic ledger 120-2 associated with the entity. . . The transaction record is generated electronically based on a detected transaction and is logged automatically by the electronic ledger, as is known. In some cases, logging the identity of the product may comprise scanning a physical identifier (e.g. a barcode or RFID tag) on or associated with the product, which is either used as an input to the electronic ledger or used to verify a transaction record.” Thus, ¶107 shows that the identity of the product can be determined by scanning a barcode on the product (i.e. read attached information that is attached to the product). Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product.), “is configured to:”
“acquire the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information from the server” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information read)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.); and
. . .
“wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” ¶63 shows “As will be detailed later on, the environmental impact value certificate 160 is retrievable by specific other entities (customers) using respective systems 100, by means of the certificate being transmitted to those entities and/or by means of the certificate being uploaded to a mutually accessible database (i.e. a database that is accessible only to prescribed entities).” (Emphasis added). ¶¶113-14 shows “[0113] As described with reference to FIG. 2, the updated environmental impact certificate is then made available [(i.e. viewable)] to the next (downstream) entity in the supply chain. Various methodologies are contemplated by which a downstream entity can receive an environmental impact certificate 160 from an upstream user. Where a certificate database 320 is used, the updated certificate is sent to, and is saved in, this database (which is accessible by the downstream entity). The environmental impact certificate 160 generally includes details of the downstream user (obtained from the electronic ledger 120), but in an alternative may simply reference the upstream user—in which case the environmental impact value estimator in respect of the downstream user identifies the environmental impact certificate 160 in the certificate database 320 by comparing their electronic ledger 102 (relating to the incoming product at the downstream user) and the environmental impact certificate 160 (which includes details of the same product at the upstream user, obtained from the upstream user's electronic ledger 120-1). [0114] The downstream entity may also or alternatively be passed unique identifiers (such as a user name and password) by the upstream user, allowing unique access to the environmental impact certificate 160.” Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises . . . display 1016 [(i.e. display unit)] . . .” Therefore, because the entity identity (i.e. attached information) controls access by a “computer device 1000” with “display 1016” to the process information Mostyn teaches defining which process is viewable by the display unit of the respective user. (i.e. if the computing device can access the information, the information is able to be viewed, and if the computing device cannot access the information, the information is not able to be viewed.).),
“the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” Because the entity identity teaches the “displayable range information,” and that each entity performs a process, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product.” As discussed above, ¶¶113-14 teaches that the entity identity determines which data can be accessed (and therefore displayed). Therefore, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information” “provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user.”),
“the mobile terminal acquires, from the server, the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. “multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach “a display controller that is configured to display the manufacturing history information acquired by the acquisition controller on a display unit” (Although Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit), Mostyn does not explicitly teach that the manufacturing information is displayed.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach, but Biernat teaches:
“display the manufacturing history information to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).) and
“the mobile terminal displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. “the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biernat with Mostyn because Biernat teaches that displaying information stored on the blockchain enables users to receive the advantages of block-chain tracking of manufactured goods (¶111, ¶147, and ¶153). Thus, combining Biernat with Mostyn furthers the interest taught in Biernat, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Mostyn teaches “A manufacturing history display method for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user on a display unit of a mobile terminal” (Fig. 5 and ¶105 shows that the method of Fig. 5 uses the “environmental impact evaluator 130” of Fig. 4. Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows “FIG. 4 shows an example of a computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator 130.” Fig. 1 and ¶96 shows “The environmental impact evaluator 130 is implemented as a computer program product which is hosted by each entity, generally in the same way that the electronic ledger 120 of the entity is hosted, via a computing device [(i.e. information processing device)] and/or a proprietary server [(i.e. server)].” (Emphasis added). Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows “FIG. 4 shows an example of a computer device suitable for implementing the environmental impact evaluator 130.” See also ¶175 showing “a ‘cloud computing’ arrangement” and ¶105 showing that the method of Fig. 5 uses the “environmental impact evaluator 130” of Fig. 4. Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product. Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit). ¶117 shows that the computing device could be a “point of sale system” including a “barcode scanner” (i.e. mobile terminal).),
“the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product” (¶64 shows “[T]he environmental impact certificate [(i.e. manufacturing history information)] is transferable (and traceable) along with a good as it moves (or is modified) within a supply chain. As a consequence, the environmental impact certificate cumulatively factors the environmental impact values associated with each step in the flow of goods.” Fig. 2 and ¶¶67-72 shows that chronological order that each process (e.g. User A, then User B, then User C) is logged.), “the manufacturing history display method comprising steps of:”
“a first process of reading and decoding, with the mobile terminal, attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product” (¶117 shows that the computing device could be a “point of sale system” including a “barcode scanner” (i.e. mobile terminal).Fig. 5 shows the sequential steps of “Log identity of product [530],” “Identify product from ledger [540],” and “Access environmental impact certificate [550].” Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows “In a third step 530, an identity of the product is logged by means of the electronic ledger 120-2 associated with the entity. . . The transaction record is generated electronically based on a detected transaction and is logged automatically by the electronic ledger, as is known. In some cases, logging the identity of the product may comprise scanning a physical identifier (e.g. a barcode or RFID tag) on or associated with the product, which is either used as an input to the electronic ledger or used to verify a transaction record.” Thus, ¶107 shows that the identity of the product can be determined by scanning a barcode on the product (i.e. reading attached information that is attached to the product). Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product.);
“a second process of acquiring, with an acquisition controller from a server, the manufacturing history information that is linked to the attached information that is read by the mobile terminal” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information read)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.); and
. . . ,
“wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” ¶63 shows “As will be detailed later on, the environmental impact value certificate 160 is retrievable by specific other entities (customers) using respective systems 100, by means of the certificate being transmitted to those entities and/or by means of the certificate being uploaded to a mutually accessible database (i.e. a database that is accessible only to prescribed entities).” (Emphasis added). ¶¶113-14 shows “[0113] As described with reference to FIG. 2, the updated environmental impact certificate is then made available [(i.e. viewable)] to the next (downstream) entity in the supply chain. Various methodologies are contemplated by which a downstream entity can receive an environmental impact certificate 160 from an upstream user. Where a certificate database 320 is used, the updated certificate is sent to, and is saved in, this database (which is accessible by the downstream entity). The environmental impact certificate 160 generally includes details of the downstream user (obtained from the electronic ledger 120), but in an alternative may simply reference the upstream user—in which case the environmental impact value estimator in respect of the downstream user identifies the environmental impact certificate 160 in the certificate database 320 by comparing their electronic ledger 102 (relating to the incoming product at the downstream user) and the environmental impact certificate 160 (which includes details of the same product at the upstream user, obtained from the upstream user's electronic ledger 120-1). [0114] The downstream entity may also or alternatively be passed unique identifiers (such as a user name and password) by the upstream user, allowing unique access to the environmental impact certificate 160.” Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises . . . display 1016 [(i.e. display unit)] . . .” Therefore, because the entity identity (i.e. attached information) controls access by a “computer device 1000” with “display 1016” to the process information Mostyn teaches defining which process is viewable by the display unit of the respective user. (i.e. if the computing device can access the information, the information is able to be viewed, and if the computing device cannot access the information, the information is not able to be viewed.).),
“the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” Because the entity identity teaches the “displayable range information,” and that each entity performs a process, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product.” As discussed above, ¶¶113-14 teaches that the entity identity determines which data can be accessed (and therefore displayed). Therefore, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information” “provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user.”),
“the mobile terminal acquires, from the server, the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. “multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach “a display controller that is configured to display the manufacturing history information acquired by the acquisition controller on a display unit” (Although Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit), Mostyn does not explicitly teach that the manufacturing information is displayed.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach, but Biernat teaches:
“a third process of displaying, with the display unit, the manufacturing history information to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).) and
“the mobile terminal displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. “the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biernat with Mostyn because Biernat teaches that displaying information stored on the blockchain enables users to receive the advantages of block-chain tracking of manufactured goods (¶111, ¶147, and ¶153). Thus, combining Biernat with Mostyn furthers the interest taught in Biernat, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Mostyn teaches “A non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing a manufacturing history display program for allowing selective display of manufacturing history information of a product to a respective user on a display unit of a mobile terminal, the manufacturing history information comprising information that records, in chronological order, multiple pieces of process information that is each indicative of a manufacturing-related process of the product, the manufacturing history display program causing a computer of an information processing device to serve as: the mobile terminal ” (Fig. 1 and ¶96 shows “The environmental impact evaluator 130 is implemented as a computer program product which is hosted by each entity, generally in the same way that the electronic ledger 120 of the entity is hosted, via a computing device [(i.e. information processing device)] and/or a proprietary server.” Fig. 4 and ¶104 shows “As mentioned, the environmental impact evaluator 130 is implemented as a computer program product, which is stored, at different stages, in any one of the memory 1006, storage device 1008, and removable storage 1010. The storage of the computer program product is non-transitory, except when instructions included in the computer program product are being executed by the CPU 1002, in which case the instructions are sometimes stored temporarily in the CPU 1002 or memory 1006.“ See also ¶175 showing “a ‘cloud computing’ arrangement” and ¶105 showing that the method of Fig. 5 uses the “environmental impact evaluator 130” of Fig. 4. ¶64 shows “[T]he environmental impact certificate [(i.e. manufacturing history information)] is transferable (and traceable) along with a good as it moves (or is modified) within a supply chain. As a consequence, the environmental impact certificate cumulatively factors the environmental impact values associated with each step in the flow of goods.” Fig. 2 and ¶¶67-72 shows that chronological order that each process (e.g. User A, then User B, then User C) is logged. Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product. Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit). ¶117 shows that the computing device could be a “point of sale system” including a “barcode scanner” (i.e. mobile terminal).) “that is configured to:”
read and decode attached information that is physically attached to the product, the attached information linked to the manufacturing history information of the product” (Fig. 5 shows the sequential steps of “Log identity of product [530],” “Identify product from ledger [540],” and “Access environmental impact certificate [550].” Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows “In a third step 530, an identity of the product is logged by means of the electronic ledger 120-2 associated with the entity. . . The transaction record is generated electronically based on a detected transaction and is logged automatically by the electronic ledger, as is known. In some cases, logging the identity of the product may comprise scanning a physical identifier (e.g. a barcode or RFID tag) on or associated with the product, which is either used as an input to the electronic ledger or used to verify a transaction record.” Thus, ¶107 shows that the identity of the product can be determined by scanning a barcode on the product (i.e. read attached information that is attached to the product). Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] for the product from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320.” ¶58 and ¶61 shows that “The environmental impact value certificate 160 comprises data, including for example: . . . the details regarding the goods (identifier, type, constituent parts, quantities, etc.) and/or the operations undertaken in relation to the goods [(i.e. manufacturing history information of a product)] that were utilized in the calculation of the environmental impact value . . .” ¶64 shows “As described in more detail below, the environmental impact certificate 160 is—by association with the electronic ledger—linked to a party, good and/or status of a good.” Thus, Mostyn shows that the barcode (i.e. attached information) is linked to manufacturing history information of a product.);
“acquire, from a server, the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information that is read by the mobile terminal” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. the manufacturing history information linked to the attached information read)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.); and
. . . ;
“wherein the attached information includes displayable range information, and the displayable range information defines which of the process information of the product is displayable to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” ¶63 shows “As will be detailed later on, the environmental impact value certificate 160 is retrievable by specific other entities (customers) using respective systems 100, by means of the certificate being transmitted to those entities and/or by means of the certificate being uploaded to a mutually accessible database (i.e. a database that is accessible only to prescribed entities).” (Emphasis added). ¶¶113-14 shows “[0113] As described with reference to FIG. 2, the updated environmental impact certificate is then made available [(i.e. viewable)] to the next (downstream) entity in the supply chain. Various methodologies are contemplated by which a downstream entity can receive an environmental impact certificate 160 from an upstream user. Where a certificate database 320 is used, the updated certificate is sent to, and is saved in, this database (which is accessible by the downstream entity). The environmental impact certificate 160 generally includes details of the downstream user (obtained from the electronic ledger 120), but in an alternative may simply reference the upstream user—in which case the environmental impact value estimator in respect of the downstream user identifies the environmental impact certificate 160 in the certificate database 320 by comparing their electronic ledger 102 (relating to the incoming product at the downstream user) and the environmental impact certificate 160 (which includes details of the same product at the upstream user, obtained from the upstream user's electronic ledger 120-1). [0114] The downstream entity may also or alternatively be passed unique identifiers (such as a user name and password) by the upstream user, allowing unique access to the environmental impact certificate 160.” Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises . . . display 1016 [(i.e. display unit)] . . .” Therefore, because the entity identity (i.e. attached information) controls access by a “computer device 1000” with “display 1016” to the process information Mostyn teaches defining which process is viewable by the display unit of the respective user. (i.e. if the computing device can access the information, the information is able to be viewed, and if the computing device cannot access the information, the information is not able to be viewed.).),
“the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product and provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user” (Fig. 5 and ¶107 shows that the “identity of the product” that is logged into the electronic ledger includes “an operation to which a product is to be subjected by the entity.” Fig. 5 and ¶110 shows that “the identity of the entity is used” in “step 560.” Therefore, Mostyn teaches that the identity of the entity [(i.e. displayable range information)] is included in the “attached information.” Because the entity identity teaches the “displayable range information,” and that each entity performs a process, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information varies depending on the manufacturing-related process of the product.” As discussed above, ¶¶113-14 teaches that the entity identity determines which data can be accessed (and therefore displayed). Therefore, Mostyn teaches that “the displayable range information” “provides selective display of the manufacturing history information depending on the respective user.”),
“the mobile terminal acquires, from the server, the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 5 and ¶109 shows “In a fifth step 550, the environmental impact certificate 160 for the product [(i.e. “multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] from the preceding entity in the supply chain is identified and accessed, via the certificate access module 136 accessing the mutually accessible certificate database 320 [(i.e. server)].” See also Fig. 5 and ¶110 showing step 560.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach “a display controller that is configured to display the manufacturing history information acquired by the acquisition controller on a display unit” (Although Fig. 4 and ¶99 shows that “computer device 1000 comprises a processor in the form of a CPU 1002” (i.e. display controller) and “display 1016” (i.e. display unit), Mostyn does not explicitly teach that the manufacturing information is displayed.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach, but Biernat teaches:
“display the manufacturing history information to the respective user on the display unit” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).) and
“the mobile terminal displays the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. “the multiple pieces of the process information that is displayable on the display unit as defined by the displayable range information”)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.” (Emphasis added).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biernat with Mostyn because Biernat teaches that displaying information stored on the blockchain enables users to receive the advantages of block-chain tracking of manufactured goods (¶111, ¶147, and ¶153). Thus, combining Biernat with Mostyn furthers the interest taught in Biernat, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210383405-A1 (“Mostyn”) in view of US-20190340269-A1 ("Biernat") and “What Does Closed-Loop Recycling Mean?” (“Deer” 08/12/2021 https://www.roadrunnerwm.com/blog/what-does-it-mean-to-close-the-loop).
Regarding Claim 4, Mostyn and Biernat teach “The information processing device of claim 1,” as shown above.
Mostyn further teaches that “wherein the manufacturing history information includes a process related to recycling of the product” (¶21 shows “The one or more operations may comprise one or more of: manufacturing; extracting; storing; transporting; processing; disposal; recycling; and packaging. The identity of the product may comprise at least one of: the type of the product; the quantity of the product; and an operation to which a product is subjected. The electronic ledger may comprise at least one of: a transaction logger; stock ledger; an accounting system; a time sheet; a manufacturing process logger; and a track and trace system.” (Emphasis added).), and
“when the processes of [recycling] are repeatedly recorded multiple times, a most recent return of the raw materials through the recycling is defined as a most upstream process . . .” (¶176 shows “In an alternative, there may be no distinct ‘end user’, as described in particular with reference to FIG. 3. Instead, the ‘end user’ is viewed as simply another entity that performs operations on the product and passes ecological impact along to further entities, in particular entities involved in disposal and recycling of the product.” Thus, the recycling is logged and therefore teaches that it is defined as a most upstream process under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language discussed above when the processes of recycling is recording multiple times.).
Mostyn does not explicitly teach, but Biernat further teaches that “a most recent return of the raw materials through the recycling is defined as a most upstream process . . .” includes “a most recent return of the raw materials through the recycling is defined as a most upstream process to be displayed on the display unit” (Fig. 21 and ¶146 shows “Blockchain search system 2106 [(i.e. acquisition controller)] can control remote access to versions of industrial blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b generated by industrial devices 1102 throughout a supply chain or other industrial blockchain ecosystem. In the illustrated example, user interface application 2110 allows a user to access subsets of relevant blockchain data associated with a finished product 2108 by scanning a scannable code, such as a QR code, imprinted on the product 2108 using the mobile device's optical scanning capabilities. The code establishes the identity of a source of the product's blockchain as well as the stored data to be accessed. When a product's code is scanned by the mobile device 2104 and an authentic user identifier is provided to the user interface application 2110, the application 2110 sends the request 2114 together with the user identity information to the interface component 2118 of search system 2118. Interface component 2118 can verify the identity included in request 2114 and determine a level of access associated with the identity. In response to determining that the identity is an authorized user identity and that the identity is permitted a degree of access to at least a subset of available industrial blockchain information, interface component 2118 instructs blockchain search and management component 2122 to search the blockchains 1304 a, 1304 b and retrieve a subset of relevant product data 2112 [(i.e. manufacturing history)] that the identified user is authorized to view based on the data request and identity. The interface component 2118 [(i.e. display controller)] renders the results on mobile device 2104. The user interface application 2110 can be configured to generate suitable graphical screens 2102 [(i.e. display unit)] for rendering the authorized product data 2112. Search and management component 2122 can be configured to retrieve the relevant blockchain data from any suitable source of the data accessible within the blockchain ecosystem, including but not limited to any of the blockchain-enabled industrial devices 1102 or other non-industrial sources of the requested data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Biernat with Mostyn because Biernat teaches that displaying information stored on the blockchain enables users to receive the advantages of block-chain tracking of manufactured goods (¶111, ¶147, and ¶153). Thus, combining Biernat with Mostyn furthers the interest taught in Biernat, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Mostyn and Biernat do not explicitly teach, but Deer further teaches that “the processes of [recycling]” includes “the processes of (a) returning raw materials through the recycling, (b) manufacturing the product, and (c) recycling the product” (Page 1 states “By definition, closed-loop recycling is the manufacturing process that leverages the recycling and reuse of post-consumer products [(i.e. “(c) recycling the product”)] to supply the material [(i.e. “(a) returning raw materials through the recycling”)] used to create a new version of the same product [(i.e. “(b) manufacturing the product.”)].”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Deer with Mostyn and Biernat because Deer teaches that closed loop recycling can improve preservation of natural resources and save energy (Page 1). Thus, combining Deer with Mostyn and Biernat furthers the interest taught in Deer, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
CN-103810165-A (“LV”) shows an ERP system that a scan can be decoded to determine access of a user based on the right information, i.e. a two-dimensional code format carries access user authority information.
WO-2021130341-A1 (“Behrends”) shows identity-based access to blockchain used to trace supply chains from wholesalers, traders, retailers, and consumers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights