To ask this question, first of all, you have to look at the application date, publication date and application date of application B.
For example, if the filing date of application A is 1, the publication date is 1, and the filing date of application B is 1, then A is B's conflicting application, and conflicting application can only be used to evaluate novelty, not creativity. Therefore, in this case, if A's application claims and specifications only record A's traceability method, it is basically difficult to evaluate B's traceability. According to the patent law, A can't evaluate B's creativity.
If A's application date is the same as above, and B's application date is June 1, then A is B's existing technology and can directly evaluate B's creativity. It can basically be determined that B is difficult to authorize because it does not meet the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 22 of the law.
Of course, in the case of application conflicts, there is also a little risk. Because the two applications only have different uses, A application is used for traceability and B application is used for anti-counterfeiting, the examiner may conclude that the use restriction does not imply that the application has a certain structure and/or composition, and the technical solutions of A and B applications are essentially the same, so B is not novel. This is also a possibility. Of course, if we want to overcome this novelty problem, we can only add substantive contents different from those in the A application specification in the B application specification. Then the novelty problem is overcome by later modification.