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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall into the mental process and/or organized human activity, as they are similar to making a database for identities and components. The claim(s) recite(s) (claim 9) sending identities , programming, receiving event notifications, storing the identities and information in records, recording state changes, and rejecting requests, which can be seen as mental steps that can be done with the aid or pen/ paper and can also be classified as organizing human activity, similar to processing information through a clearing-house, where the business relation is the relationship between a party submitted a credit application (e.g., a car dealer) and funding sources (e.g., banks) when processing credit applications, Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1331, 101 USPQ2d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Further the Examiner notes that 15/145,361 is similar in that it is drawn toward updating databases. The Examiner has interpreted that the maintaining and updating of databases is abstract in that the steps are drawn to routine data gathering (sending/ receiving) that involves generic computer components performing generic computer steps. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims only specify further details relating to the abstract idea, such as the types of information and sending/ receiving data as part of the abstract idea which is only routine data gathering. The rejecting of update requests can be seen as insignificant post solution activity or also mental steps. Limitations drawn to matching data are seen as abstract and similar to a "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Re claim 10, limitations of a frequency range are merely limitations further specifying details related to the abstract idea as they pertain to generic computer components. Re claim 11, the Examiner notes that limitations to blockchain are seen as generic storage, and thus drawn to specifying abstract idea limitations. Re claim 12, marking is seen as mental/ post solution activity. Re claim 13, the limitations are merely specifying details of the types of data. Claims 14-15 are related to mental steps/ organized human activity as it pertains to database maintenance. Claim 16-20 are rejected is similar to 9-15, wherein the receiving steps are seen as routine data gathering steps, and evaluating against rules is mental steps performed by generic computer components. Re the claim 16 limitations of storing secure keys and their matching, this is interpreted as routine data gathering and comparing of stored data to obtained data, which is abstract and falls under data comparisons as discussed above (mental processes and/or organized human activity) as it pertains to database/ data management. Re claims 1-8, the limitations have been discussed above wherein receiving requests, and updating requests is similar to concepts of following rules and routine data gathering for databases and thus is still rejected under 101.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as applications/ API/ computer systems are merely generic computer components performing generic computer functions, and thus are not more than mere instructions to applying the abstract idea in a particular generic computer environment. Thus, there is not a practical application because such limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordin et al. (US 20130320079).
Re claim 1, Nordin et al. teaches a processor and memory (abstract+);
sending a plurality of unique AEHP identities comprising an identity of a product and an instance identity, storing the AEPH identities and event information in immutable records in a datastore, recording changes by adding records until a predefined condition is met, and rejecting requests to update after the condition is met (FIG. 4, wherein there is encoded data 130 and hard coded data that reads on an instance and identity, and as there is hard coded IDs and identity that are programmed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing data for immutable records such as for security/ data integrity), the programmed chips are interpreted as in FIG. 4 programmed RFID tag IC, and this chip is provided at an OEM site which updates a state in the datastore such as at 130 and via encryption at 110 to provide the user writeable area 115. An API to do this is an obvious expedient for interfacing. By virtue of this, the state associated with the identity is updated. Though silent to adding a second immutable record associating the first identity and update state, the Examiner notes that general record keeping is an obvious expedient for tracking date and logging data for record keeping purposes. The Examiner notes that paragraph [0029]+ teaches changes with the unique AEPH identities can occur as the tag travels downstream to facilities which update the information as part of downstream authentication which obviates a predefined threshold of records or operations as it pertains to the downstream entities, and further including paragraph [0039]+ which creates a list of terminated identities, and which obviates a condition being met to rejected requested to update a state , obviated by security concerns.
Re claims 3 and 6, though silent to the particular types of data storage, the Examiner notes that blockchains would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, for data storage, and would have been an obvious expedient to storage data based on efficiency, storage capabilities, processing power required, security, networking, etc.
Re claim 5, as tag and production information and unique identification codes are taught, the use of a specific type of format code (SKU or UPC) is an obvious expedient based on indented use, for example, as the general conditions of the claim have been taught and merely changing a type of data is within the ordinary skill in the art.
Re claim 7, updating information associated with a tag has been discussed above, wherein different locations (downstream) can read on different states, for example.
Re claim 8, predefined condition limitations have been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claims 9, 11, 13-15, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 1, 3, and 5-7.
Claim(s) 2, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordin et al., as discussed above, in view of Nitikin et al. (US 20190005283).
Re claims 2, and 10, though silent to the frequency range, the examiner notes that such ranges are conventional for certain types of RFID tags and thus is an obvious expedient based on system constraints.
Nonetheless, Nikitin et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0093]+). Re claim 18, the narrowing of the range to a smaller band is an obvious expedient for system constraints, as the general conditions are taught, and further optimizing a value/ range involves only routine skill in the art.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a known range for expected results (system constraints, security, distance, cost, acceptability, etc.)
Claim(s) 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordin et al., as discussed above, in view of Diorio et al. (US 8941469).
The teachings of Nordin et al. have bene discussed above but are silent to the tag storing the key.
Diorio et al. teaches such limitations (FIG. 7).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for ease of access/ security. The key is understood to match in order for reading out the data, for example, as a security concern. The lifecycle event is interpreted as downstream updating, as discussed above.
Re claims 19-20, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 3 and 5.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordin et al./ Diorio et al., as discussed above, in view of Nitikin et al. (US 20190005283).
The teachings of Nordin et al./ Diorio et al. have been discussed above, and though silent to the frequency range, the examiner notes that such ranges are conventional for certain types of RFID tags and thus is an obvious expedient based on system constraints.
Nonetheless, Nikitin et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0093]+). Re claim 18, the narrowing of the range to a smaller band is an obvious expedient for system constraints, as the general conditions are taught, and further optimizing a value/ range involves only routine skill in the art.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a known range for expected results (system constraints, security, distance, cost, acceptability, etc.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876