DETAILED ACTION
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
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 01/10/2026.
Claims 1-24 are cancelled.
Claims 25-42 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 01/10/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 recites “generating a delivery instruction information based on the optimal information i as the instruction”. The “i” appears to be an erroneous addition, so line 4 will be treated as reciting “generating a delivery instruction information based on the optimal information .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 25-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 25-30 are directed to an apparatus, claims 31-36 are directed to a method, and claims 37-42 are directed to a manufacture.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Independent claim 25, as exemplary of independent claims 31 and 37, recites abstract concepts including: acquire a token issuance request information, the token issuance request information comprises includes a product identification information of an alcoholic beverage product that is a transaction target, issue an alcoholic beverage ... information ... based on the token issuance request information for the alcoholic beverage product that is specified by the product identification information, release the alcoholic beverage token information on a market, acquire a transaction information of the alcoholic beverage token information in the market, and update an owner information of the alcoholic beverage token information ... based on the transaction information.
These identified limitations overall recite the abstract idea of “providing and recording alcoholic beverage transactions”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, claims 25, 31, and 37 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 25, 31, and 37 recite additional elements including: at least one processor; computer; a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recorded with a program; issuing a token information and updating a token information on a blockchain. The computer, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium are recited as generic tools perform generic functions (storing and executing code) and amount to mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations associated with a blockchain (issue a token on the blockchain, update an owner of a token on the blockchain) similarly use this additional element as a generic tool on which to implement the alcoholic beverage transactions, without getting into how the blockchain technology actually issues a token, or works in general. In this way, the blockchain additional elements amount to no more than generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological use – which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h). When considering the combination of the generic computer using generic blockchain technology, these features still provide mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claims 25, 31, and 37 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 25, 31, and 37 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 25-30, 32-36, and 38-42 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims further define the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements for consideration. Thus dependent claims 25-30, 32-36, and 38-42 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-27, 30-33, 36-39, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldberg et al. (US 12,380,416 B1).
Claim 25 – Goldberg discloses an apparatus for alcoholic beverage token transaction support, comprising: at least one processor, wherein
the processor is configured to:
acquire a token issuance request information, the token issuance request information comprises a product identification information of an alcoholic beverage product that is a transaction target (Col 11, ll. 25-30 “The operator provides the identifier associated with a lifecycle item to the CFT application 150 for such things as creating a CDA to be offered for sale through the marketplace”),
issue an alcoholic beverage token information on a blockchain based on the token issuance request information for the alcoholic beverage product that is specified by the product identification information (Col 13, ll. 60-65 “The plurality of characteristics of each lifecycle item may be stored as metadata associated with the particular identifier and logged in a blockchain”),
release the alcoholic beverage token information on a market (Col 13, ll. 50-55 “When ready, the CDA can be created using the unique identifier and characteristic information and offered for sale through the marketplace”),
acquire a transaction information of the alcoholic beverage token information in the market (Col 15, ll. 20-30 “Thus, during the process of selling the CDA, the CFT application 150 may receive a purchase request for the CDA from the user via the user device (e.g., in the form of a “buy now” or “bid” operation)”), and
update an owner information of the alcoholic beverage token information on the blockchain based on the transaction information (Col 18, ll. 20-25 “Control then continues to 728 to update the CDA to identify the user as the owner of the CDA and to include terms of the agreement, e.g., as part of a smart contract associated with the CDA”).
Claim 26 – Goldberg further discloses the apparatus according to Claim 25, wherein
the processor is configured to:
acquire an exhibition information from an owner of the alcoholic beverage token information (Col 11, ll. 25-30),
release the exhibition information on the market (Col 13, ll. 50-550,
acquire the transaction information of the alcoholic beverage token information in the market based on the exhibition information (Col 15, ll. 20-30), and
update the owner information of the alcoholic beverage token information on the blockchain based on the transaction information (Col 18, ll. 20-25).
Claim 27 – Goldberg further discloses the apparatus according to Claim 25, wherein
the processor is configured to:
acquire an optional information on the alcoholic beverage product that is in association with the alcoholic beverage token information (Col 18, ll. 30-40 “The CDA is updated (which could also be updated off-chain based on the tag identifier or the unique ID of the CDA) with information such as lifecycle information, a photo, a location, a timestamp, etc.”), and
generate an instruction information based on the optional information and outputs the instruction information (Col 18, ll. 35-40 “Control continues to 812 to optionally notify the CDA owner of updated lifecycle information”).
Claim 30 – Goldberg further discloses the apparatus according to Claim 27, wherein
the processor is configured to:
acquire a management information of the alcoholic beverage product, of which the instruction information is outputted (Col 18, ll. 25-35 “Control begins at 804 to receive a scan of a tag along including associated information such as lifecycle information, a photograph of the lifecycle item, a location of the lifecycle item, a timestamp, etc. Control continues to 808 to update a corresponding CDA on the digital public ledger with the tag information (based on the received identifier of the tag that is also associated with the CDA)”), and
output the management information in association with the corresponding alcoholic beverage token information (Col 18, ll. 35-40 “optionally notify the CDA owner of updated lifecycle information”).
Claims 31-33 and 36, which are directed to a method, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for apparatus claims 25-27 and 30. Claim(s) 31-33 and 36 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 25-27 and 30, respectively.
Claims 37-39 and 42, which are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for apparatus claims 25-27 and 30. Claim(s) 37-39 and 42 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 25-27 and 30, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28-29, 34-35, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Smith et al. (US 2019/0073626 A1).
Claim 28 – Goldberg discloses the apparatus according to claim 27 and an alcoholic beverage product, but does not disclose limitations associated with storage management instructions. However, Smith – which is also directed to ecommerce – teaches wherein
the optional information comprises information on storage of the ... product (Smith ¶ [0047] “After receiving the order, method 400 can optionally comprise additional activities. For example, in some embodiments, method 400 can comprise an activity of determining at least one item of the one or more grocery items of the order comprises a refrigerated item or a frozen item”), and
the processor is configured to generate a product management instruction information based on the optional information as the instruction information and outputs the product management instruction information (Smith ¶ [0049] “For example, a frozen item of ice cream can comprise a logistic suppliance guideline recommending that the ice cream not be out of a freezer for more than 15 minutes. ”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the storage instruction as taught by Smith in the apparatus of Goldberg because there is a risk that refrigerated and/or frozen items can expire during delivery due to the refrigerated and/or frozen items being outside of a temperature-controlled environment for an excessive amount of time (Smith ¶ [0043]).
Claim 29 – The combination of Goldberg in view of Smith teaches the apparatus according to claim 27 and an alcoholic beverage product. Goldberg but does not disclose limitations associated with delivery management instructions. However, Smith further teaches
the optional information comprises information on delivery of the ... product (Smith ¶ [0052] “When system 300 (FIG. 3) determines that the plurality of grocery items comprises at least two-temperature controlled items, method 400 can optionally further comprise activities of (1) determining a first delivery compliance time for a first temperature-controlled item of the at least two temperature-controlled items, and (2) determining a second delivery compliance time for a second temperature-controlled item of the at least two temperature-controlled items”), and
the processor is configured to generate a delivery instruction information based on the optional information as the instruction information and outputs the delivery instruction information (Smith ¶ [0052] “When system 300 (FIG. 3) determines that the plurality of grocery items comprises at least two-temperature controlled items, method 400 can optionally further comprise activities of (1) determining a first delivery compliance time for a first temperature-controlled item of the at least two temperature-controlled items, and (2) determining a second delivery compliance time for a second temperature-controlled item of the at least two temperature-controlled items”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the delivery instruction as taught by Smith in the apparatus of Goldberg because there is a risk that refrigerated and/or frozen items can expire during delivery due to the refrigerated and/or frozen items being outside of a temperature-controlled environment for an excessive amount of time (Smith ¶ [0043]).
Claims 34-35, which are directed to a method, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for apparatus claims 28-29. Claim(s) 34-35are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 28-29, respectively.
Claims 40-41, which are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for apparatus claims 28-29. Claim(s) 40-41 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 28-29, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Anapliotis et al. (US 2024/0202725 A1) is directed to techniques for facilitating jurisdictional regulatory compliance verifications of pseudonymized and/or anonymized users accessing regulated and/or non-regulated services provided by one or more service providers.
R. Miron, M. Hulea and S. Folea (NPL Reference U) presents a solution based on blockchain technology for the safe storage, management and access of the measurements data for dangerous substances such as alcohol.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.G.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights