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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are original claims 1-21 of 13 June 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “method” of claims 1-6 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “system” of claims 7-11 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “method” of claims 12-21 constitutes a process under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-21 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method comprising: receiving data characterizing a manufacturing process; ...”- See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... determining an amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing based on the data characterizing the manufacturing process; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... providing the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receiving” and “providing” limitations), and evaluation and/or judgment (e.g., the recited “determining” limitation), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use independent claim 1 as an example, the claim recites no additional element limitations. Accordingly, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) Independent claim 1 does not recite any additional elements limitations, and thus, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Regarding claims 2-6, the claims depend from independent claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: data received ... characterizing species and types of VOCs detected during a manufacturing process; and data characterizing lot numbers corresponding to timestamps corresponding to the manufacturing process” limitations of claim 2, the “wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: a proportion of each lot directed to a subsequent manufacturer” limitation of claim 3, the “wherein providing the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process comprises: determining a chemical fingerprint based on the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing; storing the chemical fingerprint” limitations of claim 4, the “wherein providing the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process comprises: displaying the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process” limitation of claim 5, and the “further comprising: adjusting operating parameters ... based on the determined amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing” limitation of claim 6).
Unlike independent claim 1, claims that depend therefrom recite additional elements (e.g., the “from a sensor” limitation of claim 2, the “on a blockchain” limitation of claim 4, the “on a consumer device” limitation of claim 5, and the “of a manufacturing device” limitation of claim 6). These additional elements, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 2-6 fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
Further, still addressing claims 2-6, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 2-6 fail to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claims 2-6 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 7-11, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-6, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-6. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-6 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7-11. For example, claims 7-11 recite the following abstract idea limitations that are similar to the abstract idea limitations of claims 1-6: the “sense an amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced ... to produce a signal indicative of the amount and species of the VOCs produced; ... control ... responsive to the signal; and ... receive data characterizing a manufacturing process ..., the data characterizing the manufacturing process including data characterizing the signal” limitation(s) of independent claim 7, the “functionality for storing data” of claim 8, the “functionality for generating a cryptographically secure portion of data, wherein the cryptographically secure portion of data comprises the data characterizing the manufacturing process” limitation(s) of claim 9, the “wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: data ... characterizing species and types of VOCs detected during a manufacturing process; and data characterizing lot numbers corresponding to timestamps corresponding to the manufacturing process” limitation(s) of claim 10, and the “wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: a proportion of each lot directed to a subsequent manufacturer” limitation(s) of claim 11). Claims 7-11 recite the following additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claims 1-6: the “
system comprising: a manufacturing device; a sensor coupled to the manufacturing device, the sensor configured to ... by the manufacturing device, the sensor configured to ...; a controller coupled to the manufacturing device and the sensor, the controller configured to control the manufacturing device ...; and a cloud-based storage system coupled to the controller, the cloud-based storage system configured to ... from the controller” limitation(s) of claim 7, the “system ... wherein the cloud-based storage system comprises ... on a blockchain” limitation(s) of claim 8, the “system ... wherein the cloud-based storage system comprises” limitation(s) of claim 9, the system ... received from a sensor” limitation(s) of claim 10, and the “system” limitation(s) of claim 11. Claims 7-11 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 12-21, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-11, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-11. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-11 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 12-21. For example, claims 12-21 recite the following abstract idea limitations that are similar to the abstract idea limitations recited by claims 1-11: the “A method comprising: querying ... data characterizing a manufacturing process; receiving data characterizing a manufacturing process responsive to querying ...; determining an amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing of a consumer or industrial product based on the data characterizing the manufacturing process; and providing the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process” limitation(s) of independent claim 12, the “wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: data removed ... characterizing species and types of VOCs detected during a manufacturing process; and data characterizing lot numbers corresponding to timestamps corresponding to the manufacturing process” limitation(s) of claim 13, the “wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: a proportion of each lot directed to a subsequent manufacturer” limitation(s) of claim 14, the “further comprising: receiving ... data characterizing a barcode of a consumer or industrial product, wherein querying occurs in response to receiving the data characterizing the barcode” limitation(s) of claim 15, the “wherein the product is a garment” limitation(s) of claim 16, the “wherein providing comprises: displaying the amount of VOCs produced during the manufacture of the consumer or industrial product” limitation(s) of claim 17, the “wherein determining amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing of the consumer or industrial product is done” limitation(s) of claim 18, wherein determining amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing of the consumer or industrial product is done” limitation(s) of claim 20, and the “wherein the species of the VOCs includes a chemical composition from at least one of the following chemical groups: alkyl hydrocarbons; aromatic amines; amines; alkyl aldehydes; aldehydes; alkyl phenols; salicylate esters; aromatic ethers; bisphenols; phthalates; benzothiazoles; organometallics parabens; azodyes; aceto/benzophenones; chlorinate paraffins; per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs); halogenated hydrocarbons; aromatic hydrocarbons; ketones; alcohols; carboxylic acids; lactones; unsaturated aldehydes; or unsaturated ketones” limitation of claim 21. Claims 12-21 recite the following additional elements that are similar to the additional elements recited by claims 1-11: the “a blockchain storing ... the blockchain” limitation of independent claim 12, the “from a sensor” limitation of claim 13, the “by a consumer device” limitation of claim 15, the “by a consumer device” limitation of claim 18, the “wherein the consumer device is a mobile phone or tablet” limitation of claim 19, and the “by a cloud-based system” limitation of claim 20. Claims 12-21 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020-113280 A to Cahill (hereinafter referred to as “Cahill”), in view of Yadav E (2023) The Role of the Fashion Industry and Textiles in Lung Health and Associated Pathogens: A Review. J Pulm Med Respir Res 9: 077 (hereinafter referred to as “Yadav”), and further in view of Bates, Liam. “How Does a TVOC Sensor Actually Work?” kaiterra, March 17, 2020 (last accessed on 23 July 2026 at https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/resources/how-tvoc-sensor-work) (hereinafter referred to as “Bates”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Cahill discloses features that read on the following limitations:
“A method comprising: ...” - Cahill discloses, “techniques” (English-language translation, p. 1). The techniques in Cahill read on the recited limitation.
“... receiving data characterizing a manufacturing process; ...” - Cahill discloses, “field devices 15-22 may be any type of device such as sensors” and “obtaining measured values of process parameters” (English-language translation, p. 6). Receiving the measured values of process parameters from the sensors, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining ... during manufacturing based on the data characterizing the manufacturing process; and ...” - Cahill discloses, “The process plant data is an event in the process plant 10 such as process parameter data, product parameter data, configuration data, user interaction data, maintenance data, commissioning data, plant network data, product tracking data, alarms, leaks, failures, and errors. It may include relevant event data, or any other suitable data” (English-language translation, p. 7).
“... providing the data characterizing ... during the manufacturing process.” - Cahill discloses, “The viewing application may be executed on one or more operator workstations (or one or more remote computing devices communicatively coupled to the operator workstation and the data highway), the viewing application including data from the controller application. Receive data through the highway and use a user interface to display this data to the process control system designer, operator, or user to view several views, such as operator view, engineer view, technician view” (English-language translation, p. 3). Displaying the process data, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation.)
Yadav discloses features that read on the following limitations of independent claim 1:
“... volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released ...” - See the aspects of Cahill that have been cited above. While Cahill discloses obtaining process parameter values and determining events like leaks, using sensors, in process plants, Cahill does not appear to explicitly state that VOCs are involved. Yadav discloses, “VOCs are released during the production of textiles and garments, primarily from dyeing, printing, and finishing processes [4]” (pp. 2 and 3), and “Regulations and monitoring should be implemented to reduce emissions of PM and VOCs from textile manufacturing processes [12-15]” (p. 4). Using sensors to determine parameter values regarding leaks, in Cahill, when applied to monitoring the release of VOCs, as in Yadav, reads on the recited limitation.
“... VOCs released ...” - See the aspects of Cahill and Yadav that have been cited above.
Yadav discloses mitigating industrial pollution (pp. 1 and 2), similar to the claimed invention and to Cahill. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensing and determining of events, in Cahill, to be applied to monitoring VOCs released, as in Yadav, as “exposure to VOCs can lead to respiratory illnesses,” which should be avoided, per Yadav (p. 3). The combination of Cahill and Yadav will be referred to as “Cahill/Yadav” below.
Bates discloses features that read on the following limitations of independent claim 1:
“... an amount and species ...” - See the aspects of Cahill and Yadav that have been cited above. While Cahill/Yadav teaches sensing parameters associated with release of VOCs, Cahill/Yadav does not appear to explicitly state the exact type of parameters. Bates discloses, “facing another key question: how are VOCs measured, or how does a TVOC sensor work” (p. 1), “For the continuous monitoring of TVOC, MOS sensors are generally used” (p. 2); various analytes including “Acetone, Butylacetate,” and others (p. 3); and “analyte concentration (ppm)” (p. 3). Identifying analytes and their ppms, in Bates, reads on the recited limitation.
“... the amount and species ...” - See the aspects of Bates that have been cited above.
Bates discloses using sensors to measure VOCs (p. 1), similar to the claimed invention and to Cahill/Yadav. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sensors for monitoring VOCs, of Cahill/Yadav, to be able to determine analytes and their concentrations in VOCs and TVOC, as in Bates, as “VOCs are important indoor air pollutants that negatively impact our health” and should be avoided, per Bates (p. 1). The combination of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates will be referred to as “Cahill/Yadav/Bates” below.
Regarding claim 2, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: data received from a sensor characterizing species and types of VOCs detected during a manufacturing process; and ...” - See the aspects of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates that have been cited above. The process parameters include data detected during operations, in Cahill, wherein that data is about VOCs, as in Yadav, and is generated by sensors with the ability to identify VOC analytes and their PPMs, as in Bates, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 2.
“... data characterizing lot numbers corresponding to timestamps corresponding to the manufacturing process.” - Cahill discloses, “The set of data includes transaction data (eg, input and output addresses, transaction values, document hash values, time stamps, transaction fee values, etc.) that identify the transaction data and the nature of the transaction and the content that accompanies the transaction (English-language translation, p. 12), and “a product identifier, such as a bar code” (English-language translation, p. 22). Product identifier data, including bar codes indicative of numbers or alphanumeric, in combination with time stamps for transactions associated with the identified products, in Cahill, read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the data characterizing the manufacturing process comprises: a proportion of each lot directed to a subsequent manufacturer.” - See the aspects of Cahill that have been cited above. Cahill also discloses, “information regarding the amount of product received” and “includes that amount in the transaction” (English-language translation, p. 18). The process data including amounts of product received by entities of the process chain, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein providing the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process comprises: determining a chemical fingerprint based on the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing; ...” - See the aspects of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates that have been cited above. Monitoring VOCs during operations, in Yadav, including determining the types of analytes and their concentrations in the sampled gases, in Bates, when applied in the context of using sensors to detect leaks during operations processes, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
“... storing the chemical fingerprint on a blockchain.” - See the aspects of Cahill and Bates that have been cited above. Cahill also discloses, “A distributed ledger is a storage mechanism for data, events, transactions” and “One type of distributed ledger, blockchain, consists of groups of transactions organized into "blocks" and ordered (hence the term "blockchain"). Although the distributed ledger described herein is referred to in the context of blockchain, this is just one example of a distributed ledger” (English-language translation, p. 3). Storing the analytes data from the sensors, in Bates, as transactions data on the blockchain, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein providing the data characterizing the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process comprises: displaying the amount and species of VOCs released during the manufacturing process on a consumer device.” - See the aspects of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates that have been cited above. Displaying, on the user interface of the viewing application executed on the remote computing devices, process data including sensed leaks, in Cahill, wherein monitoring is of VOCs, as in Yadav, and the data includes sensor data includes VOC analytes and concentrations thereof, in Bates, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting operating parameters of a manufacturing device based on the determined amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing.” - See the aspects of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates that have been cited above. Cahill also discloses, “When the process plant data is received at computing device 250, the computing device analyzes the process plant data to identify the state of the corresponding process plant entity. The condition indication is then sent to the user interface device 235, eg, via a domain authentication service. In this way, the operator can view the conditions that occur at various process plant entities within the process plant. The operator may then take appropriate action to resolve the problem created by these conditions” (English-language translation, p. 10), and “An operator may adjust set points, respond to alarms, etc. via user controls on an operator workstation that may be included in a transaction as user interaction data” (p. 21). The operator taking actions by adjusting set points of workstations based on sensed operations parameters, including leaks, in Cahill, wherein the sensing involves monitoring VOCs, as in Yadav, using sensors that determine analytes present and their concentrations, in Bates, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 10, and 11, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-4, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-4. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-4 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7, 8, 10, and 11. There also are limitations recited by claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1-4, such as the recited “a controller coupled to the manufacturing device and the sensor, the controller configured to control the manufacturing device responsive to the signal; and a cloud-based storage system coupled to the controller, the cloud-based storage system configured to receive data characterizing a manufacturing process from the controller, the data characterizing the manufacturing process including data characterizing the signal” limitations of claim 1. Cahill/Yadav/Bates also teach features that read on these limitations. See, for example, Cahill (“A control module within the controller sends control signals to the field device via a communication line or link, thereby controlling the operation of at least a portion of the process plant or system” (English-language translation, p. 2), and “As shown in FIG. 7B, transactions from each local blockchain 710, 720 are provided to a global blockchain 730 of a respective party or process plant, which global blockchain 730 may be provided by several process plants and/or It is maintained via a cloud service that has several cloud computing systems” (English-language translation, p. 14)). The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claims 7, 8, 10, and 11. Claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable in view of Cahill/Yadav/Bates.
Regarding claim 9, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The system of claim 7, wherein the cloud-based storage system comprises functionality for generating a cryptographically secure portion of data, wherein the cryptographically secure portion of data comprises the data characterizing the manufacturing process.” - See the aspects of Cahill that have been cited above. Cahill also discloses, “blockchain 600 includes a number of blocks 602-608 that are connected together to form a chain of blocks 602-608 of transactions. To cryptographically link blocks and transactions, each block in blockchain 600 organizes its transactions into a Merkle tree. In Merkle Tree, each transaction is hashed according to a cryptographic hash algorithm (eg, SHA-256), and the resulting output hash is then combined with the hash of another transaction. The combined result is then also hashed according to a cryptographic hash algorithm” (English-language translation, p. 12). The cloud service including functionality for generating cryptographically hashed transactions data, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 17, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 12-14 and 17. There also are limitations recited by claims 12-14 and 17 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1-5, such as the recited “querying a blockchain storing data characterizing a manufacturing process; receiving data characterizing a manufacturing process responsive to querying the blockchain” limitations of claim 12. Cahill/Yadav/Bates also teach features that read on these limitations. See, for example, Cahill (“Thus, a user, such as a customer, may use the product's identification information, via the user interface device, to retrieve each transaction associated with a particular product from the distributed ledger. The user interface device may then, via the user interface, display a representation of the supplier or source of the product and the entity that handled the product, such as the manufacturer, distributor, distribution facility, retailer, customer purchasing the product, etc. .. The user interface device may also display a view of the components of the product via the user interface. The component identification information may then be used by the user to retrieve each of the transactions associated with a particular component of the product from the distributed ledger. The user interface device may then display, via the user interface, a supplier or source of the component and a representation of the entity handling the component, such as the manufacturer, distributor, distribution facility, or the like” (English-language translation, p. 22)). The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claims 12-14 and 17. Claims 12-14 and 17 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable in view of Cahill/Yadav/Bates.
Regarding claim 15, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving, by a consumer device, data characterizing a barcode of a consumer or industrial product, wherein querying occurs in response to receiving the data characterizing the barcode.” - See the aspects of Cahill that have been cited above. Cahill also discloses, “the product packaging may include a product identifier, such as a bar code or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, that provides data from a distributed ledger of products when scanned. For example, a user may scan a barcode or RFID tag via a mobile device, which then presents an indication of the supplier or source of the product and the entity that handled the product on the mobile device” (English-language translation, p. 22). Receiving, by the mobile device, data characterizing the barcode of the product, wherein the instructions to provide the transactions data is in response to scanning the barcode, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 15, wherein the product is a garment.” - See the aspects of Yadav that have been cited above. The garments, in Yadav, read on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 15, wherein determining amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing of the consumer or industrial product is done by a consumer device.” - See the aspects of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates that have been cited above. Determining process parameters during operations, including sensed leaks, using the mobile device, in Cahill, wherein the leaks are of VOCs, as in Yadav, and the sensed data indicates VOC analytes and their concentration, in Bates, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 18, wherein the consumer device is a mobile phone or tablet.” - See the aspects of Cahill that have been cited above. The mobile device, in Cahill, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 15, wherein determining amount and species of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released during manufacturing of the consumer or industrial product is done by a cloud-based system.” - See the aspects of Cahill, Yadav, and Bates that have been cited above. The determining of operational parameters during manufacturing of the product using the cloud service, including sensed leaks, in Cahill, wherein the sensed leaks are of monitored VOCs, as in Yadav, and involve identifying VOC analytes and their concentrations, as in Bates, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Cahill/Yadav/Bates teaches features that read on the following limitations:
“The method of claim 12, wherein the species of the VOCs includes a chemical composition from at least one of the following chemical groups: alkyl hydrocarbons; aromatic amines; amines; alkyl aldehydes; aldehydes; alkyl phenols; salicylate esters; aromatic ethers; bisphenols; phthalates; benzothiazoles; organometallics parabens; azodyes; aceto/benzophenones; chlorinate paraffins; per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs); halogenated hydrocarbons; aromatic hydrocarbons; ketones; alcohols; carboxylic acids; lactones; unsaturated aldehydes; or unsaturated ketones.” - See the aspects of Bates that have been cited above. The formaldehyde, in Bates, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of independent claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
Mahajan, Devki. “Blockchain-enabled Traceability in Manufacturing System.” International Journal of Mechatronics and Manufacturing Technology, Volume 8, Issue 2, July-December 2023.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights