DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments filed December 11, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed December 11, 2025 on pages 6-9 regarding the prior art rejections, specifically that the claimed invention is novel and nonobvious with respect to the cited prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In terms of the arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection, specifically that Caton doesn’t teach critical limitations. In terms of the processing step for the part one and part two of the sensed unique code, the arguments allege that the Caton reference does not provide the two parts or that the sensed unique and remaining code are not specifically provided. This is also further discussed in terms of Caton not providing the redirection to a separate API. In terms of Caton, the provided passages provide a first and second aspect that are received through the image processing. This includes a first and second part of the unique code to provide secure/hidden elements to determine authenticity. This further provides separate website and other links based on the authentication that is interpreted under “forced separate application”. The arguments are not describing how the claimed invention is distinguished from the reference. The arguments are with respect to elements that are not required within the specified claim limitation. This is specific to the arguments in terms of the claims allegedly requiring a dynamic link to an external, third party authority and creating a direct, verifiable connection between user and authority’s own system. These aspects are not clearly defined, claimed, or supported. The arguments are making an allegation that is not providing how the claims or specification support a distinction from the cited reference. As such, claims and 7 are maintaining the 35 USC 102 rejection.
In terms of the 35 USC 103 rejection, specifically that the combination is not obvious with respect to the crawler within Grandhi. Grandhi is directed towards similar elements and aspects towards product that provides a crawler. The arguments allege that Grandhi doesn’t teach the specific internal lookup into the claim. Examiner notes that the arguments are alleging elements into the claims that are not specified or described. The claims are merely a crawler to look up and extract for rules for the first and second part which is what the combined prior art teaches. There is no specific limitations in terms of providing a specialized component that operates on internal lookup tables within a secure authentication system. This further is discussed and alleged with the arguments for the forcing an authentication interface for the combination of Guinard. The arguments are alleging elements that are not specified or provided with respect to a closed-loop process engaging the authority’s system. The claim is merely providing an open interface that the combination provides. As such, the prior art combination teaches the considered prior art. Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are maintaining the 35 USC 103 rejection.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are maintaining the prior art rejections, as considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caton et al [2015/0302421], hereafter Caton.
Regarding claim 6, Caton discloses a method (200) for authenticating a product, said method comprising the following steps: scanning (202), by a user device (102), at least one visual of a product by means of a mobile phone, a smartphone, an iPad, a tablet, a palmtop, code scanning cameras, a smartwatch and code scanning equipment; receiving (204), a sensing module (104) of the user device (102), the said visual (Fig 1, 4A, and paragraphs [72-75]; Caton discloses a smart user device to provide document (product) verification based on a scanned QR code with overt/covert features.);
sensing (206), by said sensing module (104) of the user device (102), a unique code in said visual, wherein the unique code selected from a group of code including a QR code, a watermark, a texture, a barcode, an invisible UV image, and a randomly generated numbers or a combination thereof, and wherein the unique code is overt or covert and is located on the surface of the product or hidden under a removable laver; capturing (208), by a reference capturing module (106) of a remote server (118), said visual along said unique code visual selected from a group of a visible image, an invisible image, a visible unique code, or an invisible unique code or a combination thereof (Fig 1, 4A, and paragraphs [78-82]; Caton discloses that the code is provided in terms of barcodes, QR odes, images, numbers, and other features within the image and includes covert/hidden content of the code.);
processing and extracting(210), by said reference capturing module (106) of the remote server (118), said sensed unique code as ID part one and remaining said visual as ID part two from said visual (Fig 2, 4A, and paragraphs [84-94]; Caton discloses providing a security processing of the image data to provide both the visual and the hidden content to verify a product/document’s authenticity. This includes providing raw image data (part one) that is then decoded to verify the hidden visual element (part two) to lookup the verification of the document.);
receiving (214), by a processing module (112) in a recognition module (108) of the remote server (118), said ID part one and said ID part two; processing (216), by said processing module (112) in said recognition module (108) of the remote server (118), said ID part two to identify a corresponding authentication system credential sourced directly from an authentication authority of the product (Paragraphs [84-90 and 190-197]; Caton discloses the capturing of the image and processing the decoded image using remote server analysis based on the identifier. This includes providing raw image data (part one) that is then decoded to verify the hidden visual element (part two) to lookup the verification of the document. In terms of the authority of the product, Caton discloses [218-220 and 232-235] the direct source for validation and authenticity in terms of the security service);
receiving (218), by a redirection module (110), said ID part one and said authentication system credential including at least one of a website address and an application link; and force opening by said redirection module (110), an authentication interface on said user device (102) using said authentication system credential to authenticate said ID part one (Paragraphs [124-128]; Caton discloses providing an initiation of the application interface to provide the security-specific validation process to determine the validity of the document. This is based on the collected raw image of the document, processing for the hidden features, and providing the application with the authentication message based on the analysis. Further discussion in terms of websites and other links are shown within Caton [232-239] to provide additional features in terms of the authentication providing credential based on the authenticated document/image analysis.).
Regarding claim 7, Caton further discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the steps of receiving (214) and processing (216), by said recognition module (108) are performed on said remote server (118) (Fig 1, 4A, 16B, and paragraphs [218-220 and 249-252]; Caton discloses the collection and security processing within the remote server of the security service.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caton et al [2015/0302421], hereafter Caton, in view of Guinard et al [2020/0151738], hereafter Guinard, and further in view of Grandhi et al [2009/0240735], hereafter Grandhi.
Regarding claim 1, Caton discloses a system (100) to authenticate a product, said system (100) comprising: a user device (102) configured to scan a visual of a product by means of a mobile phone, a smartphone, an iPad, a tablet, a palmtop, code scanning cameras, a smartwatch, and code scanning equipment, the user device (102) comprises: a sensing module (104) configured to receive said visual and further configured to sense the presence of a unique code in said visual (Fig 1, 4A, and paragraphs [72-75]; Caton discloses a smart user device to provide document (product) verification based on a scanned QR code with overt/covert features.),
wherein the unique code selected from a group of code including a QR code, a watermark, a texture, a barcode, an invisible UV image, and a randomly generated numbers or a combination thereof, and wherein the unique code is overt or covert and is located on the surface of the product or hidden under a removable laver (Fig 1, 4A, and paragraphs [78-82]; Caton discloses that the code is provided in terms of barcodes, QR odes, images, numbers, and other features within the image and includes covert/hidden content of the code.);
a reference capturing module (106) configured to cooperate with said sensing module (104) to capture said sensed unique code along with said visual selected from a group of a visible image, an invisible image, a visible unique code, or an invisible unique code or a combination thereof, and further configured to-process and extract said sensed unique code as ID part one and extract remaining said visual as ID part two from said visual (Fig 2, 4A, and paragraphs [84-94]; Caton discloses providing a security processing of the image data to provide both the visual and the hidden content to verify a product/document’s authenticity. This includes providing raw image data (part one) that is then decoded to verify the hidden visual element (part two) to lookup the verification of the document.);
a recognition module (108) located on a remote server (118) communicatively coupled to said reference capturing module (106) to receive and process said ID part one and ID part two, said recognition module (108) of the remote server (118) comprising: a processing module (112) configured to cooperate with said reference capturing module (106) to receive said ID part one and said ID part two and further the remote server (118) configured to process a plurality of parts present in said ID part one and said ID part two (Paragraphs [84-90 and 190-197]; Caton discloses the capturing of the image and processing the decoded image using remote server analysis based on the identifier. This includes providing raw image data (part one) that is then decoded to verify the hidden visual element (part two) to lookup the verification of the document.);
and a redirection module (110) of the user device (102) communicatively coupled to said remote server (118), said redirection module (110) is configured to cooperate with said recognition module (108) to receive said ID part one along with said authentication system credential including at least one of a website address and an application link, and further configured to force open an authentication interface on said user device (102) using said authentication system credential to authenticate said ID part one (Paragraphs [124-128]; Caton discloses providing an initiation of the application interface to provide the security-specific validation process to determine the validity of the document. This is based on the collected raw image of the document, processing for the hidden features, and providing the application with the authentication message based on the analysis. Further discussion in terms of websites and other links are shown within Caton [232-239] to provide additional features in terms of the authentication providing credential based on the authenticated document/image analysis.).
Caton discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Caton does not specifically teach machine learning rules and a crawler;
Guinard teaches a repository (114) configured to store a first look up table having a list of a plurality of image recognition and machine learning rules and a second look up table to store a list of a plurality of authentication system credential sourced directly from an authentication authority of the product (Paragraphs [165-174]; Guinard discloses comparing the information using ML rules, authentication scores, and other attributes to determine the product authenticity. Within the combination, Caton provides the direct source for validation and authenticity in terms of the security service and Guinard teaches the specific ML rules for determining a similar product verification.); and
Caton discloses a product verification system that utilizes lookup tables for image analysis and comparison to determine verification and authentication, however, Caton does not specifically disclose machine learning rules.
Guinard teaches a similar product authentication system that specifically utilizes machine learning to determine rules for verification.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the product verification system that utilizes lookup tables for image analysis and comparison to determine verification and authentication of Caton the ability to include a similar product authentication system that specifically utilizes machine learning to determine rules for verification as taught by Guinard since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination teaches the above product verification using machine learning and database rules, however, the combination does not specifically teach a crawler;
Grandhi teaches a crawler and extractor (116) configured to receive a first signal from said processing module (112) to crawl through the first look up table and extract said image recognition and machine learning rules to identify said ID part two and further configured to receive a second signal from said processing module (112) to crawl through the second look up table and extract said authentication system credential corresponding to said identified ID part two (Paragraphs [94 and 152-156]; Grandhi teaches a similar product image searching that specifically teaches crawling and table lookup for information within a database. Caton [243-246] teaches elements of the look up tables, Guinard [100-106] teaches aspects of comparison within the database, and Grandhi teaches the specific crawl and lookup within databases to provide the information.).
The combination discloses a product authentication system that matches information within database rules and attributes for the code and product fingerprint, however, the combination does not specifically teach the specific crawl elements.
Grandhi teaches a similar system that specifically teaches crawl and lookup elements for information within a database.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the product authentication system that matches information within database crawling for product ID validation of the combination the ability to include a similar system that specifically teaches the specific lookup and crawl elements for information within a database as taught by Grandhi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system (100) as claimed in claim 1,
Guinard further teaches said recognition module (108) is configured to use machine learning techniques and image recognition techniques to process said ID part one and ID part two (Paragraphs [97-103 and 165-173]; Guinard discloses that the product authentication utilizes machine learning to provide the authentication scores. Within the combination, Caton discloses image recognition for the first/second ID part and other techniques and Guinard teaches a similar product authentication that specifically utilizes machine learning.).
Caton discloses a product verification system that utilizes lookup tables for image analysis and comparison to determine verification and authentication, however, Caton does not specifically disclose machine learning rules.
Guinard teaches a similar product authentication system that specifically utilizes machine learning to determine rules for verification.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the product verification system that utilizes lookup tables for image analysis and comparison to determine verification and authentication of Caton the ability to include a similar product authentication system that specifically utilizes machine learning to determine rules for verification as taught by Guinard since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629