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
Claims 1-2 have been examined in this Non-Final. Claims 1-2 are currently pending.
Priority
Application 19/087,545 filed 03/23/2025 is a continuation of Application 17/668,707 filed 02/10/2022 which claims priority to Provisional Application 63/147,992 filed 02/10/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1- 2 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system for verifying provenance and integrity of raw materials. For Claim 1 limitations of:
[…] instructions for implementing and managing a […] structure that verifies a provenance and integrity of raw materials suppliers, and raw materials supplied therefrom, […]:
receive a raw materials supplier identity,
receive an identification and a description of a batch of raw materials provided by the raw materials supplier,
receive a first material test result from a first entity analyzing compliance of materials from the batch of raw materials with a given quality specification for the raw materials,
receive one or more subsequent material test results analyzing compliance of materials from the batch of raw materials with the given quality specification for the raw materials from one or more subsequent entities independent of the first entity and independent of the raw materials supplier,
store the first material test result and the one or more subsequent material test results […], comprising a […] contract for confirming the first material test results and the one or more subsequent test results, and
execute the […] contract to generate confirmation scores, wherein the execution produces a degree of validation score based on a definable satisfactory variation in the confirmation scores, and wherein a satisfactory variation causes […] validation routine.
The above limitations are reciting the concept of verifying raw materials so that the recipient can be provided with a guarantee as to the province and integrity of the raw materials. This is being done so the recipient can use the raw materials as delivered (Spec Par. 0021). The claim elements that define the abstract idea are considered to be a fundamental economic practice of verifying an item in the context of a sale of an item. This could be done when a person is buying an item, such as rare artwork or rare baseball card or other items where it would be desirable to provide a certificate of authenticity. The concept of verifying the provenance and integrity of raw materials represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. Additionally, the examiner notes that for the claimed steps/functions that define the abstract idea, a human being can read a set of specifications a product needs to meet, and determine if a raw material meets the specifications set forth and share the results. Absent the recitation to the use of a computer, blockchain, and smart contract, the claimed step/functions can be performed by a person, and would constitutes claiming human activity. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processing system, a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, blockchain network, block of a block chain, a processor, and smart contract that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of a blockchain network merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely "generally linking" the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processing system, a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, blockchain network, block of a block chain, a processor, and smart contract, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of a blockchain network merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (blockchain technology). MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely "generally linking" the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, even when considered separately and as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As such claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2 is similarly rejected because it either further defines/narrows the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) a verified block made accessible to the raw materials supplier and to one or more intended recipients of the raw materials. Therefore claim 2 is considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Distinguishable From Prior Art
Boyd (US20030069795) discloses a data management system and method that allows suppliers to provide material property information for rapid preparation of certificates of analysis in ways that correspond with requirements for Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), including archiving information related to raw materials for use in subsequent quality audits, while greatly improving procedures for approving received raw materials for use.
Popp (US8660680) discloses monitoring an acceptance criteria of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes are described and disclosed herein. Consequently, the methods provide a means to perform validation and quality control on an integrated level whereby a pharmaceutical manufacturer can ensure data and product integrity and minimize cost.
After conducting different searches in PE2E Search, Similarity Search, Google, and IP.com, it appears that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features of receiving a raw materials supplier identity, receiving an identification and a description of a batch of raw materials provided by the raw materials supplier, receiving a first material test result from a first entity analyzing compliance of materials from the batch of raw materials with a given quality specification for the raw materials, receiving one or more subsequent material test results analyzing compliance of materials from the batch of raw materials with the given quality specification for the raw materials from one or more subsequent entities independent of the first entity and independent of the raw materials supplier, storing the first material test result and the one or more subsequent material test results in a block of a block chain, the block chain comprising a smart contract for confirming the first material test results and the one or more subsequent test results, and executing the smart contract to generate confirmation scores, wherein the execution produces a degree of validation score based on a definable satisfactory variation in the confirmation scores, and wherein a satisfactory variation causes the processor to execute a block validation routine, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
Dependent claim 2 is also allowable over prior art by virtue of its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626