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 .
Notice
The Applicant is STRONGLY advised to submit ONLY ONE SET OF CLAIMS AND/OR SPECIFICATION SHOWING ALL THE CHANGES (i.e., cross-out for deleted language, underline for added language, etc.).
PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL CLEAN SET OF CLAIMS AND/OR SPECFICATION WITHOUT SHOWING THE CHANGES. THAT IS, ONLY A MARK-UP VERSION IS REQUIRED.
MORE IMPORANTLY, ONLY MAKE CHANGES BASED ON THE LAST VERSION. The current set of claims is listed below for your convenience.
In Claims:
Claim 24 (Currently Amended) A customer apparatus for facilitating digital content creation and digital content delivery from a product provider artifact carrying a unique identification, comprising:
a mobile device, the mobile device comprising at least one mobile device processor operatively connected to at least one cloud digital content management system via a mobile telecommunication network, wherein the at least one mobile device processor is configured to:
read the unique identification stored by said the product provider artifact;
create digital content and associate digital content to the unique identification;
obtain digital content associated to the unique identification from the at least one cloud digital content management system; and
directly show the digital content obtained on the mobile device from the at least one cloud digital content management system via the mobile telecommunication network based on the unique identification.
25. (Currently Amended) The customer apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the unique identification is a visible unique identification and/or a concealed unique identification configured for the direct recording and showing of the digital content.
26. (Previously Presented) The customer apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the mobile device reads the product provider artifact unique identification and enables the creation of digital content associated with the unique identification.
27. (Previously Presented) The customer apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the cloud digital content management is for processing mobile application transactions over the mobile telecommunication network; and for the administration, generation and storage of digital content and unique identification key associated with the product provider artifact.
28. (Currently Amended) A method for facilitating digital content creation and digital content delivery using a product provider artifact carrying a unique identification, the method comprising:
a mobile device, connected to at least one cloud digital content management system via a mobile telecommunication network, capable of:
reading the unique identification stored by the product provider artifact;
creating the unique digital content, associating the digital content to the unique identification and directly storing digital content to the at least one cloud digital content management system;
obtaining the digital content from the at least one cloud digital content management system upon the reading of the unique identification; and
directly showing the digital content obtained from the at least one cloud digital content management system via the mobile telecommunication network on the mobile device upon the reading of the unique identification.
29. (Currently Amended) The method in accordance with claim 28, wherein the unique identification is a visible unique identification and/or a concealed unique identification configured for the direct recording and showing of digital content.
30. (Previously Presented) The method in accordance with claim 28, wherein the mobile device reads the product provider artifact and enables the creation of digital content associated with the unique identification.
31. (Previously Presented) The method in accordance with claim 28, wherein the cloud digital content management system is for processing mobile application transactions over the mobile telecommunication network; and for the administration, generation and storage of digital content associated with the unique identification and the product provider artifact.
32. (Previously Presented) The customer apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the mobile device reads the product provider artifact unique identification and enables the showing of digital content associated with the unique identification.
33. (Previously Presented) The method in accordance with claim 28, wherein the mobile device is for reading the product provider artifact unique identification and enables the showing of digital content associated with the unique identification.
34. (Previously Presented) The customer apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the product provider artifact has a memory for storing concealed unique identification for the creation and the showing of digital content.
35. (Previously Presented) The method in accordance with claim 28, wherein the product provider artifact has a memory for storing concealed unique identification.
36. (Previously Presented) The customer apparatus in accordance with claim 24, wherein the product provider artifact can carry unique identification codes for the direct recording and showing of digital content.
37. (Currently Amended) The method in accordance with claim 28, wherein the mobile device can read unique identification codes on the product provider artifact for the direct recording and showing of digital content.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rebuttal of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C 112(a): Written Description
The Applicant argues on page 3 of Remarks that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the 2014 Specification and Drawing 2 would immediately recognize that the Applicant was in possession of both visible and concealed electronic data carriers. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner repeatedly discussed and explained as to why Figure 2 does not teach or suggest “concealed” and “NFC tag”. It is clear that Figure 2 illustrates a product includes SLCode. Nowhere does it even implicitly or explicitly teach or suggest that this product is the NFC tag and it is concealed. Again, the Specification and/or Figure 2 fails to illustrates a NFC tags, let alone, the NFC tags is being visible or concealed.
It is noted that any amendment to Specification on March 07, 2015 and later have not been entered as the Applicant is unable to rebut and provide any additional support for the added features.
Original Drawing 2 Provides Definitive Support for Concealed Architectures
The Applicant explains that the “SL Code” as a system level, concealed, and acts as a data bridge. The “NFC tag” on the other hand requires a very short range communication, precise alignment, and a powered reader actively initiating communication.
Since the Applicant fails to describe and/or define the term “NFC tag” both in Specification and/or drawings. Thus, the term “NFC tag” and “concealed” is reasonably considered as new matters.
The “memory” Genus inherently Discloses Electronic Species “NFC/RFID”
The Applicant argues that by specifically claiming “memory”, the Applicant provided an explicit functional teaching of an electronic data carrier, the most common species of which is an NFC or RFID chip.
It is noted that “memory” is a generic term. Thus, the term “memory” cannot inherently include NFC or RFID chip, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would NEVER treat “memory” as implicitly teaching those electronic devices (e.g., NFC or RFID chip).
Public Interest and Competitive Equity
The Applicant argues that the Examiner denies the Applicant the “conceal” scope is the gift the heart of this American innovation to foreign interests who would exploit the very “memory” architecture the Applicant disclosed in 2014.
The terms “concealed” or “NFC tag” are considered as new matters since the Applicant failed to disclose in the original Specification.
Rebuttal of Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103: Non-Obviousness over Mu and Stickybits
Unit-Level ID vs Category-Level UPC:
The applicant argues and compares different ways of identifications. However, nowhere in claim does it describe or define a specific way of identification. Claim merely recites “a unique identification”, and the QR code of Mu reads on “unique identification” of claim language.
Direct Streaming vs “The Wall”:
Even though the Applicant might correctly state that the users select content; however, this teaching of Stickybits does not preclude the teachings of claimed features.
Infrastructure Realities (2007 vs 2014)
The Applicant argues that the Applicant’s invention is cloud-native architecture and does not use XML. It is noted that Mu discloses a server 120 or 240, in which it reads on “cloud digital content management system” of claim language because Mu’s servers provide a digital content management system at the network level.
Distinguishing from Acosta-Cazaubon
This point of arguments is moot as the Examiner did not rely on Acosta-Cazaubon for the teachings of the argued features.
Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness (Secondary Considerations)
Long-Felt Need in High Stakes Industries:
The Applicant’s argument fails because the Applicant relies on evidence that does not relate to the claimed features.
Evidence of Subsequent Copying/Industry Shift:
The Applicant cited a Chinese Patent which does not demonstrate copying, industry shift or non-obviousness.
Argument #2: Regarding the Examiner’s Rejection of “memory” as Inherently Teaching “concealed code” Technologies (e.g., NFC):
Functional Equivalent and the “Memory” Genus
The Applicant asserts that “memory” is a genus that inherently includes concealed code technologies such as NFC tag or proprietary AI-powered concealed codes. The Examiner note that the term “memory” does not inherently teach or suggest concealed code, NFC tag or AI-powered concealed codes. NFC tag or AI-powered concealed codes are different technologies, and claim must expressly recite it, and specification must have the support of this teaching. The Applicant fails to provide the support in Specification and claim language fails to clearly recite it.
Judicial/Office Precedent for Functional Language
The Applicant’s reliance on U.S. Patent No. 10,504,619 is misplaced because it does not stand for the proposition that “memory” inherently teaches NFC tag.
Intent of Disclosure
The Applicant argues on page 10 that the NFC tag is simply one commercially available “species” of the “memory” genus disclosed.
Again, the Specification must describe the species. Since the Specification does not disclose, describe, or even mention the term “NFC tag” at all. Thus, the Applicant cannot broaden the disclosure after filing and declare that the memory includes NFC tag.
Argument # 4: Re: Response to Obviousness Rejection citing Stickybits
Unique Identification Number vs. Product Category (UPC)
The Applicant argues that Stickybits utilizes a standard 11-UPC barcode to identify a product category. In contrast, the claimed invention utilizes an SLCode containing a unique identification number for each individual product unit. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that claim recites a “unique identification”. Since the barcode of Stickybits is clearly a unique identification used to identify a product; thus, this teaching of Stickybits reads on “unique identification” of claim language.
The “Wall” as Technical Necessity of Category-Level IDs
The Applicant argues that Stickbybits discloses a page “The Wall” listing all contents added to this bar code while the present invention identifies the unique identification number of a specific unit. In light of the teachings of Stickybits, it discloses the use of the unique bar code to retrieve the stored video (timestamp 0:57-1:07) and posting digital content by using the scanned bar code (timestamp 0:28, 0:31-0:33, and 1:00-1:07). Thus, the teachings of Stickybits reads on “unique identification” of claim language.
Recording vs. Uploading for Personalization
The Applicant further argues that “recording” refers to the contemporaneous capture of data to be locked to a unique identification number. It is important to note that both claims and the Applicant’s own specification fails to recite, describe and/or disclose the argued features. That is, the specification fails to describes that the content is to be “recorded from an application”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), terms are given their ordinary meaning unless the specification clearly re-defines the terms. Due to the absence of the disclosure, the term “record” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as storing electronic information in databases, or digital files, regardless of when or how it is created. In light of Stickybit’s disclosure, the digital content is posted and associated with the bar code. In other words, the digital content is “recorded”.
Privacy and Authorization
The Applicant argues that Stickybits is an open platform and this architecture is incompatible with the present invention’s privacy requirements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that nowhere in claim does it recite and/or imply anything related to privacy. Thus, this point of arguments is moot.
Argument # 5: Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness (Targeted Market Need and Technical Advancement)
Market Validation Followed by Sophisticated R&D
The Applicant states that early commercial success (sales since 2016) provided initial market validation for the claimed invention. It is noted that commercial success only matters if it is caused by the claimed invention, and not by niche market positioning or unclaimed features.
Solving the “Anti-Social” Media Gap for High-Stakes Industries
The Applicant invokes pharmaceutical/healthcare, child-safety/education, and luxury & HNW individuals; however, none of these imposes any technical constraints or change the obviousness analysis. It is noted that the long-felt need is not a replacement of a missing inventive step or overcoming strong prima facie obviousness.
Direct ROI and Engagement Attribution
The Applicant argues that the claimed architecture allows brands to track actual content engagement per product unit by associating digital media directly with a unique identification number. However, none of these are claimed or required by claims. In fact, one of ordinary skill in the art would easily conceptualize the utilize a unique identification to organize, track and/or identify an item, etc. This claim feature is obvious and not novel.
Argument # 6: Non-Obviousness over Combination of Mu and Stickybits
XML as a Data Container vs. Direct Media Streaming
The Applicant again states that Mu discloses “text, graphics and multimedia” and traverses by point to the technical delivery mechanism.
The Examiner notes that claim simply requires a “unique identifier” and “show the digital content”. Claim does not recite XML limitations. Thus, this point of arguments is moot.
Temporal and Infrastructure Limitations (The 2007 Context)
The Applicant argues that Mu’s XML based language exercises do not teach or suggest a direct, unit-specific video streaming channel for personalized instructions. It is noted that Mu discloses a server-based system delivering multimedia. Nothing in Mu prohibits direct streaming. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments is not valid.
Regulatory and Security Barriers (HIPPA/GDPR)
Lastly, the Applicant argues about the regulatory and HIPPA/GDPR concerns. This point of arguments is not valid and irrelevant as claims do not recite any privacy, r compliance features. More importantly, patentability is based on technical teachings and not legal compliance frameworks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25, 29, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Applicant first introduced in the amended Specification dated March 07, 2015 by adding the phrase “SLCode can be concealed” to paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0037, and 0042 of the Specification.
The Applicant further amended Specification on March 20, 2020 to include the concept of a “NFC tag” being “concealed”.
While the original Specification dated November 10, 2014 disclosed the “SL Code”; however, the original Specification did not describe and/or suggest either implicitly and/or explicitly that the “SLCode” being concealed code. More importantly, the original Specification failed to disclose the “NFC tag”.
Furthermore, it is noted that even though Figure 1 illustrates an item # 1 being the SL code, and Figure 2 illustrates the SL Code; however, these figures failed to clearly illustrate and/or describe in any way so that one of ordinary skilled in the art could conceptualize the SLCode as illustrated in Figs 1 & 2 are the NFC tag, and being concealed.
The Applicant admits on page 21 of Remarks dated July 17, 2023 that the “Applicant acting as Pro-Se realized a day after submitting the original application, and still prior to pre-examination, an updated version adding the work “concealed” to add calriy while being fully supported by original drawing, original specification words “SL Code such as QR Code” “visible code” “comprises a memory”.
As the Examiner noted previously, the first time the Applicant introduced the term “SLCode can be concealed” was in the amended Specification dated March 07, 2015 (paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0037, and 0042 of the Specification).
Since the original specification fails to support the claim features “SL Code can be concealed, and “NFC tags”, the Examiner respectfully suggests the Applicant to amend and/or cancel claim language contained new matters as discussed above.
Specification
The amend March 07, 2015; March 17, 2017; March 02, 2020 and all subsequent amended Specification are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
On March 07, 2015, the Applicant firstly amended Specification by adding the phrase “SLCode can be concealed”, and “concealed” to paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0037, and 0042 of the Specification.
On March 17, 2017, the Applicant amended Specification by adding the SLCode (“SmartLabelCode”), such as Quick Response Code and Near-Field Communication Tag.
On March 20, 2020, the Applicant then amended Specification the concept of a “NFC tag” being “concealed”. It is further noted that all subsequent amendments to Specification after March 20, 2020 still contained new matters as discussed above.
While the original Specification dated November 10, 2014 disclosed the “SL Code”; however, the Specification did not describe either implicitly and/or explicitly that the “SL Code” being concealed code or the “NFC tag”.
Furthermore, while Figure 1 illustrates an item # 1 being the SL code, and Figure 2 illustrates the SL Code; however, these figures failed to clearly illustrate and/or describe in anyway that these SLCode are the NFC tag, and being concealed.
Therefore, the Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 24-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et al. (hereinafter “Mu”, US 2009/0108057) in view of “How I started My Business” Stickybits.com” by The Daily Beast dated March 16, 2011 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=khB70OUZ5tA) (hereinafter “Reference A”).
Regarding claim 24, Mu discloses a customer apparatus (i.e., a mobile device 10 or 210 as shown in Figs. 1 & 3) for facilitating digital content creation and digital content delivery from a product provider artifact carrying a unique identification (i.e., a Quick Response (QR) code from a physical object 40 as shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
a mobile device (i.e., the mobile device 10 or 210 includes a camera application 30 for scanning the QR code from a physical object 40 as shown in Figs. 1 & 3, and as described in paragraphs 0021, and 0023), the mobile device comprising at least one mobile device processor operatively (i.e., a processor as described in paragraph 0068) connected to at least one cloud digital content management system (i.e., a server 120 or 240 as shown in Figs. 2 & 3, and as described in paragraph 0022) via a mobile telecommunication network (i.e., a mobile infrastructure and/or a wireless network 130 as shown in Fig. 2, and as described in paragraph 0022), wherein the at least one mobile device processor is configured to:
read the unique identification (i.e., the mobile device 210 scans the QR code 205, and causes the QR code 205 to be transferred to the server 120 or 240 as shown in Figs. 2 & 3. Also, see descriptions in paragraphs 0028-0030);
obtain digital content associated to the unique identification from the at least one cloud digital content management system (i.e., the server 240 sends text, graphics and multimedia data of the file 250, which is “digital content” of claim language, directly to the mobile device 210 as described in paragraphs 0027, and 0029. In addition, an object audio or video corresponds to the transmitted & scanned QR code is retrieved as shown in Fig. 5 and as described in paragraph 0036); and
directly show the digital content obtained on the mobile device from the at least one cloud digital content management system via the mobile telecommunication network based on the unique identification (i.e., the text, graphics and multimedia data of the file 250 transmitted directly from the server 240 to the mobile device 210 as shown in Fig. 3, and as described in paragraph 0029. The multimedia object is transferred to the mobile device 210 for playback as described in Abstract. Also, the audio and video retrieved is delivered to the mobile device for presentation as shown in the last step of Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph 0036).
Mu, however, does not expressly disclose:
read the unique identification stored by the product provider artifact; and
create digital content and associate the digital content to the unique identification.
In a similar endeavor, Reference A discloses:
read the unique identification stored by the product provider artifact (i.e., scanning the unique barcode to retrieve a video the user posted earlier as described in timestamp 0:57-1:07); and
create digital content and associate the digital content to the unique identification (i.e., scanning a barcode and posting something digital to that same barcode as described in timestamp 0:28, 0:31, 0:33, and 1:00-1:07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the user to identify and/or retrieve contents by using barcodes.
Regarding claim 25, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Mu also discloses wherein the unique identification is a visible unique identification and/or a concealed unique identification configured for the direct recording and showing of digital content (i.e., a user of the mobile device scans the QR codes of an object, and a selected multimedia object corresponding to the QR code is retrieved from the database as described in Abstract). Reference A further discloses reading the unique identification such as in QR Code on the product provider artifact (i.e., reading the bar code as shown in timestamps 0:57-1:07) for direct recording of unique digital content (i.e., scanning a bar code and posting something digital to that same bar code as shown in timestamps 0:28, 0:31-0:33, and 1:00-1:07).
Regarding claim 26, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the mobile device reads the product provider artifact unique identification (i.e., a user of the mobile device scans the barcode of an object as described in timestamp 0:28) and enables the creation of the digital content associated with the unique identification (i.e., the user scans the barcode and posts a digital content corresponding to this scanned barcode as described in timestamp 0:31-0:33).
Regarding claim 27, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Mu also discloses wherein the cloud digital content management is for processing mobile application transactions over the mobile telecommunication network (i.e., the server 240 receives the transmitted QR code from the mobile device 210 over the mobile infrastructure as shown in Fig. 3); and
for the administration, generation and storage of the digital content and unique identification key associated with the product provider artifact (i.e., the server 120 or 240 stores audio visual object associated with the QR code as described in paragraphs 0017-0018, and 0036).
Regarding claim 28, Mu discloses a method for facilitating unique digital content creation and unique digital content delivery using a product provider artifact carrying a unique identification, comprising:
a mobile device (i.e., the mobile device 10 or 210 includes a camera application 30 for scanning the QR code from a physical object 40 as shown in Figs. 1 & 3, and as described in paragraphs 0021, and 0023), connected to at least one cloud digital content management system (i.e., a server 120 or 240 as shown in Figs. 2 & 3, and as described in paragraph 0022) via a mobile telecommunication network (i.e., a mobile infrastructure and/or a wireless network 130 as shown in Fig. 2, and as described in paragraph 0022), capable of:
reading the unique identification (i.e., the mobile device 210 scans the QR code 205, and causes the QR code 205 to be transferred to the server 120 or 240 as shown in Figs. 2 & 3. Also, see descriptions in paragraphs 0028-0030);
associating the digital content to the unique identification, and directly storing digital content to the at least one cloud digital content management (i.e., the server 120 or 240 stores audio visual object associated with the QR code as described in paragraphs 0017-0018, and 0036)
obtaining the digital content from the at least one cloud digital content management system upon the reading of the unique identification (i.e., the server 240 sends text, graphics and multimedia data of the file 250, which is “digital content” of claim language, directly to the mobile device 210 as described in paragraphs 0027, and 0029. In addition, an object audio or video corresponds to the transmitted & scanned QR code is retrieved as shown in Fig. 5 and as described in paragraph 0036); and
directly showing the digital content obtained from the at least one cloud digital content management system via the mobile telecommunication network on the mobile device upon the reading of the unique identification (i.e., the text, graphics and multimedia data of the file 250 transmitted directly from the server 240 to the mobile device 210 as shown in Fig. 3, and as described in paragraph 0029. The multimedia object is transferred to the mobile device 210 for playback as described in Abstract. Also, the audio and video retrieved is delivered to the mobile device for presentation as shown in the last step of Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph 0036).
Mu, however, does not expressly disclose:
reading the unique identification stored by the product provider artifact; and
creating the digital content, associating the digital content with the unique identification.
In a similar endeavor, Reference A discloses:
reading the unique identification stored by the product provider artifact (i.e., scanning the unique barcode to retrieve a video the user posted earlier as described in timestamp 0:57-1:07); and
creating the digital content, associating the digital content with the unique identification (i.e., scanning a barcode and posting something to that same barcode as described in timestamp 0:28, 0:31, and 0:33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the user to identify and/or retrieve contents by using barcodes.
Regarding claim 29, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Mu also discloses wherein the unique identification is a visible unique identification and/or a concealed unique identification configured for the direct recording and showing of digital content (i.e., a user of the mobile device scans the QR codes of an object, and a selected multimedia object corresponding to the QR code is retrieved from the database as described in Abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the mobile device reads the product provider artifact (i.e., a user of the mobile device scans the barcode of an object as described in timestamp 0:28) and enables the creation of digital content associated with the unique identification (i.e., the user scans the barcode and posts a digital content corresponding to this scanned barcode as described in timestamp 0:31-0:33).
Regarding claim 31, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Mu also discloses wherein said cloud digital content management system is for processing mobile application transactions over the mobile telecommunication network (i.e., the server 240 receives the transmitted QR code from the mobile device 210 over the mobile infrastructure as shown in Fig. 3); and
for the administration, generation and storage of digital content associated with the unique identification and the product provider artifact (i.e., the server 120 or 240 stores audio visual object associated with the QR code as described in paragraphs 0017-0018, and 0036).
Regarding claim 32, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the mobile device reads the product provider artifact unique identification and enables the showing of digital content associated with the unique identification (i.e., the user scans the barcode on the sticker as described in timestamp at 0:57-1:00) and enable the retrieval of digital content associated with the unique identification (i.e., the video posted earlier is played in response to the scanned of the barcode as described in timestamp 1:00-1:07).
Regarding claim 33, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the mobile device is for reading the product provider artifact unique identification (i.e., the user scans the barcode on the sticker as described in timestamp at 0:57-1:00) and enables the showing of digital content associated with the unique identification (i.e., the video posted earlier is played in response to the scanned of the barcode as described in timestamp 1:00-1:07).
Regarding claim 34, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the product provider artifact has a memory for storing concealed unique identification for the creation and the showing of digital content (i.e., scanning a barcode and posting something digital to that same barcode as shown in timestamp 0:28, 0:31, 0:33 and 1:00-1:07). Mu on the other hand also discloses the product provider artifact has a memory for storing the unique identification (i.e., a memory for storing as described in paragraphs 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 35, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Mu also discloses wherein the product provider artifact has a memory for storing concealed unique identification (i.e., a memory for storing as described in paragraphs 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 36, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the product provider artifact can carry unique identification codes for the direct recording and showing of digital content (i.e., scanning a barcode and posting something digital to that same barcode as shown in timestamp 0:28, 0:31, 0:33 and 1:00-1:07).
Regarding claim 37, Mu and Reference A disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Reference A also discloses wherein the mobile device can read unique identification codes on the product provider artifact for the direct recording and showing of digital contents (i.e., scanning a barcode and posting something digital to that same barcode as shown in timestamp 0:28, 0:31, 0:33 and 1:00-1:07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached on (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights