RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 21-October-2025 with respect to application 17/715,172 filed 7-April-2022.
Applicant has amended claims 21, 24 and 25, and has cancelled claims 29, 30, 32 and 33.
Claims 21-27 and 31 are currently pending.
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 §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as unpatentable over Chang et al. (United Stated Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0316234 A1), hereinafter Chang, in view of Werner et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0224867 A1), hereinafter Warner, and Caputo (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0053071 A1).
Consider claim 21: A system, Chang discloses a sensory totem badge capable of transmitting individualized information and system for use [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-4; Para. 0001, 0009-0011], comprising:
an emblem associated with a product, brand, organization, or achievement; a totem badge body (1) attached or formed on an object surface and which may comprise a visual depiction (one of the twelve major scenes of National Taiwan University, as an example) (emblem) [Fig. 1; Para. 0034-0035];
a communication chip coupled to the emblem; wherein the badge body comprises an e-tag (10) (NFC tag, or communication chip) [Fig, 1, 1a; Para. 0034];
wherein the communication chip is configured to interface with software configured for execution on a handheld electronic device,
wherein the software is configured to wirelessly obtain identifying information from the communication chip coupled to the emblem, a mobile sensing device (20) which may be a smart phone, PC or smart wearable device, and wherein the e-tag may transmit information to the mobile device, and where a mobile device may transmit information to the e-tag [Fig. 2-3; Para. 0035-0037, 0041];
wherein the identifying information uniquely identifies the specific communication chip coupled to the emblem;
a server configured to:
communicate with the handheld electronic device; embodiments comprising a cloud server (30) which communicates with the mobile sensing device [Fig. 4; Para. 0040];
receive the obtained identifying information from the handheld electronic device; wherein authentication data (identifying information) of an e-tag (10) is accessed by the mobile sensing device, the e-tag comprising a chip (11) [Fig. 1, Para. 0034, 0040];
maintain a data structure that correlates, links, or otherwise associates the identifying information with content, wherein the content is associated with the emblem; wherein the server may store individualized information (31), which may be a text, a sound, a short film, a picture or an URL website intended to be transmitted by a gift sender, corresponding to accessed authentication data for at least one totem badge, and where the individualized information may be stored in a cloud server (3) database [Fig. 4; Para. 0040-0041];
using the received identifying information, access the data structure; wherein the reading unit (23) of the mobile sensing unit senses the e-tag and [using the received authentication information] reads the individualized information from the cloud server [Fig. 2-4; Para. 0042];
select content associated with the emblem linked to the identifying information by the data structure;
transmit the selected content to the handheld electronic device; Fig. 2-4; Para. 0042]; and
customize user experiences with the emblem coupled to the specific uniquely identified communication chip with configurations of the data structure; wherein the individualized information is displayed on the mobile sensing device display (21) and/or reproduces individualized sounds; which provides commemorative value to the badge and user experience [Fig. 2; Para. 0009, 0014, 0042].
Chang suggests the storing of multiple sets of individualized information corresponding to different badges, but does not disclose a specific structure for doing so. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Werner discloses a system, method and apparatus for providing digital content for users of physical items [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-5; Para. 0001, 0004-0006], and particularly: (a) an electronic device (102) (handheld electronic device) which runs applications for scanning RFID tags [Fig. 1, 8; Para. 0054-0057, 0091], and (b) the electron device constructs a request message to a server, the request including an item identifier (818) [Fig. 8; Para. 0092], and where a digital experience manager (application) (510) locates information related to the particular item ID within one or more data bases (560, 572) (data structures) and selects a subset of information to send to the user (1008, 1012, 1016) [Fig. 10; Para. 0093].
Chang and Werner disclose storage of identification in a tag, but neither Chang nor Werner explicitly discloses that the identifier is a unique identifier of the tag or chip itself. This is well known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Caputo discloses a system and method for bulk encoding of medical items in a tracking system [Title; Abstract; Fig. 3-7; Para. 0016, 0019, 0027-0031] and particularly that each RFID tag unique serial number may be used to reference information stored in a server database [Fig. 9-10; Para. 0053, 0055, 0059-0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use an application on a mobile device to scan an RFID tag on an item of interest, using a software application to communicate a request message which includes the tag identifier to a sever, where the server searches one or more data bases for information relating to that particular identifier, and selects a subset of that related information to the user device, as taught by Werner, and applied to a system for using a sensory totem badge as taught by Chang, in order that the system operate with a plurality of different badges, providing a different experience and information for each; and it would have further been obvious to use a unique tag serial number, stored on a tag chip, as identifier information to reference associated item information stored in one or more remote databases, as taught by Caputo, and applied to the system for using a sensory totem badge as taught by Chang and modified by Werner, thereby eliminating any need to write or program an individual tag..
Consider claim 22 and as applied to claim 21: The system of Claim 21, wherein the server is further configured to:
receive at least one indication of a modification of the data structure from a user terminal; and apply the modification to the data structure.
Chang discloses that a gift sender may input information into the e-tag using a mobile sensing device, which may comprise a touch screen, and to the cloud server to update or supplement individualized information for that tag [Para. 0037, 0041].
Consider claim 24 and as applied to claim 21: The system of Claim 21, wherein:
the communication chip stores additional content, and
the additional content comprises one or more of visual information, audio information, textual information, a uniform resource locator (URL) address and an advertisement.
Chang discloses that information added and/or stored on the tag [RFID chip] or on the cloud server individual store (310) may include: a text, a sound, a short film, a picture or an URL website [Fig. 3-4; Para. 0034-0035, 0040-0041].
Caputo, moreover, discloses that a tag may include a user writeable memory (178) on which additional associated item information may be stored [Fig. 10; Para. 0060].
Consider claim 25 and as applied to claim 21: The system of Claim 21, wherein the handheld electronic device comprises at least one of a near-field communication equipped smartphone, smartwatch, personal computer, laptop and tablet.
Chang discloses that he mobile sensing device (20) may be a smart phone (or a flat PC, a smart wearable device, etc.) [Fig. 2; Para. 0036].
Werner, moreover, discloses electronic devices (102) may include mobile phones, electronic devices, mobile devices, handheld messaging devices, laptop computers, personal data assistants, electronic book readers, watches, wrist worn devices and the like [Fig. 1; Para. 0047].
Consider claim 26 and as applied to claim 21: The system of Claim 21, wherein the communication chip comprises a near field communication chip.
Chang discloses that an e-tag (10) may comprise an NFC chip (12) [Fig. 1a; Para. 0034].
Werner discloses smart tags comprise RFID chips using NFC communication [Para. 0049, 0058-0060].
Consider claim 27 and as applied to claim 21: The system of Claim 21, wherein the data structure comprises a look-up table.
Werner discloses one or more databases configured as tables organized according to identifier (560, 568, 576 ) [Para. 0073, 0077, 0079].
Caputo also discloses a database organized and searchable according to RFID serial number [Fig. 9; Para. 0055-0056].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as unpatentable over Chang et al. (United Stated Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0316234 A1), hereinafter Chang, Werner et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0224867 A1), hereinafter Warner, and Caputo (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0053071 A1), further in view of Hazi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2005/0125310 A1), hereinafter Hazi.
Consider claim 23 and as applied to claim 21: The system of Claim 21, wherein the server is further configured to:
track one or more modifications to the data structure; and cause automatic generation of at least one of a notification, a summary, and a bill associated with the one or more modifications.
Chang and Werner disclose that a user or third party may write to, or update content of the RFID tag and/or cloud server database [Chang: Para. 0041] but do not specifically disclose generation of a notification, summary or bill in response. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Hazi discloses a timeshared electronic catalog system and method [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0001] and particularly that a security data and logs database entity (142) tracks and stores a log (summary) of all data access, updates, manipulations and operations that were performed by users of the system, including all violation attempts and other unauthorized actions [Para. 0078].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to maintain a database security log, summarizing all user operations, updates and changes to database files as taught by Hazi and applied to a system for using a sensory totem badge as taught by Chang as modified by Werner and Caputo, at least for security and audit purposes, and to trach user activity.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as unpatentable over Chang et al. (United Stated Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0316234 A1), hereinafter Chang, Werner et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0224867 A1), hereinafter Warner, and Caputo (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2017/0053071 A1), further in view of Kishi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2008/0223275 A1), hereinafter Kishi.
Consider claim 31 and as applied to claim 21: The system of claim 21, wherein the emblem comprises a company logo.
Chang discloses a logo as an example of a totem or badge (emblem) [Para. 0002], and Werner discloses a logo as potential information associated with an object (and stored in a database and/or provided to a user) [Fig. 28; Para. 0078] but neither specifically discloses a logo as an emblem specifically associated with an RFID tag.
Kishi, however, an embroidery sewing system which uses an RFID tag attached to an object (exemplary article of clothing) to provide information about the object [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-5; Para. 0006-0007] and specifically discloses that an RFID tag may be attached to a “brand emblem” (logo) [Para. 0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to attach an RFID tag to a physical brand emblem or logo attached to a garment or other object as taught by Kishi and applied to a system for using a sensory totem badge as taught by Chang as modified by Werner and Caputo, where such physical tags are frequently attached to objects to identify and promote the manufacturer and brand of the objects, and present a convenient location for placement of a digital tag which may provide product information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 21-October-2025 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to an objection made to claim 25 for informalities [Remarks: page 4]: Amendment of the claim obviates the objection, and the objection is withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claims 29, 30 and 33 under 35 USC §112(a) as lacking written description support [Remarks: page 4]: Applicant cancellation of claims 29, 30 and 33 renders the rejection moot, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claim 24 under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite [Remarks: page 4]: Amendment of claim 24 obviates the rejection, and the rejection is withdrawn.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-27 and 30 under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang (US 2017/0316234 A1) and Werner (US 2014/0224867 A1) [Remarks: page 4-6]:
Regarding independent claim 21: Arguments presented assert, in summary, that neither Chang nor Werner discloses that identifying information stored on a tag, and read by the handheld device, uniquely identifies the specific communication chip associated with an associated emblem. This argument has been rendered moot by a new rejection of the claim, under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner and Caputo (US 2017/0053071 A1), where Caputo clearly teaches this feature.
Regarding claims 22 and 14-27: No additional or specific arguments are made with respect to these claims, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 21. These claims are now also rejected under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner and Caputo, based on the new rejection of claim 21, and on the particular citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Regarding claim 30: Arguments with respect to this claim are moot; the claim has been cancelled by the Applicant.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claim 23 under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner and Hazi (US 2005/0125310 A1) [Remarks: page 5-6]: No additional or specific arguments are made with respect to this claim, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 21. This claim is now rejected under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner, Caputo and Hazi, based on the new rejection of claim 21, and on the particular citations and analysis presented in this Office action.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claims 29 and 33 under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner and Naressi (US 2009/0085724 A1) [Remarks: page 5-6]: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot; the claims have been cancelled by the Applicant.
Consider Applicant’s remarks with respect to rejection of claims 31 and 32 under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner and Kishi (US 2008/0223275 A1) [Remarks: page 5-6]: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot; the claims have been cancelled by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 31: No additional or specific arguments are made with respect to this claim, and allowability asserted based on the alleged allowability of base claim 21. This claim is now rejected under 35 USC §103(a) over Chang, Werner, Caputo and Kishi, based on the new rejection of claim 21, and on the particular citations and analysis presented in this Office action.
Regarding claim 32: Arguments with respect to this claim are moot; the claim has been cancelled by the Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Collins, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0256681 A1) disclosing an RFID folder label.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685