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 .
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 are amended.
Claim 4, 12, and 20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect the objection to the title have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The objection to the title as not being descriptive of the claimed invention is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims with regards to Section 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation under 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims with regards to Section 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 18 with regards to Section 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with regards to Section 101 for being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that that the human mind is not equipped to perform features such as "collate a first feature of a first target frame with a second feature of a second target frame, wherein the first target frame corresponds to a first section of a first captured image of a first product, the first feature is different from a plurality of third features, ... the second target frame corresponds to a first section of a second captured image of a second product, and the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the second captured image; identify that the first product matches the second product, based on the collation of the first feature of the first target frame with the second feature of the second target frame”, but fails to identify any reasoning why the human mind cannot perform those limitations. On the other hand, many versions of visual comparison operations are well known to be human mental games. See, for example, Spot the Difference or Photo Hunt games, or in many police comparison practices such as comparing fingerprints or identifying suspects in police lineups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_comparison). For substantially similar reasons, the claims are also directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant also argues that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to solve a technical problem. However, neither the claims nor the arguments identify the technology or technical problem. Rather, the arguments at best point to unclaimed elements in the specification that do not recite technical problem, but a sales problem that occurs in all human sales transactions. As such, the arguments are not persuasive.
With regards to Sections 102 and 103, Applicant argues that the combination of Withrow and Ross does not teach, suggest or render obvious to “collate a first feature of a first target frame with a second feature of a second target frame ... the first target frame corresponds to a first section of a first captured image of a first product, the first feature is different from a plurality of third features ... the second target frame corresponds to a first section of a second captured image of a second product, and the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features ... identify that the first product matches the second product, based on the collation of the first feature of the first target frame with the second feature of the second target frame”. However, the limitations “the first feature is different from a plurality of third features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the first captured image” and “the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the second captured image” as recited in claim 1 do not functionally limit the claims. Rather they amount to mere statements of intended use. That is, these limitations are related to the definition of the object in the captured image, but in no way change the operation of the claimed information processing apparatus. These limitations also amount to non-functional descriptive material. For example, when capturing images of playing cards such as a 2 of hearts card and the 3 of hearts card, the hearts in the center of the card will have multiple locations where the “features” or hearts are the same (e.g. top and bottom) and multiple locations including the number and third centered heart where the features are different. Accordingly, those limitations do not distinguish the claims from the cited art.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title is not descriptive of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation and Objections
Claims 1, 17 and 18 recite “the first feature is different from a plurality of third features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the first captured image” and “the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the second captured image”, and claim 19 recites “the first feature is different from a plurality of third features that corresponds to a set of sections of the plurality of first section” and “the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a set of sections of the plurality of second sections”. It is noted that the third and fourth features in the claims are otherwise recited or used in the claims. As such, these features amount to non-functional descriptive language limit the function of the claims in any way.
Claim 9 is objected to for reciting “the the”. Appropriate correction is required
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 17 recites “collating, …, a first feature of a first target frame with a second feature of a second target frame, wherein the first target frame corresponds to a first section of a first captured image of a first product, the first feature is different from a plurality of third features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the first captured image, the second target frame corresponds to a first section of a second captured image of a second product, the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the second captured image; identifying, …, that the first product matches the second product, based on the collation of the first feature of the first target frame with the second feature of the second target frame; and …”. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “Product Authentication Processes”, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices such as mitigating risk, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and mental processes, including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). “Product Authentication Processes” is considered to be is a method of organizing human activity and mental process because the judgments made about authenticity may be made mentally based on human observations. Humans have regularly used human observations and authentication processes. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 recite substantially similar features to those recited in representative claim 17 and are directed to an abstract idea for substantially the same reasons.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites a display device and CPU, and controlling, …, a display device to output a result of the identification indicating that the first product matches the second product, claim 17 recites a computer, 18 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that may be executed by a computer, and claim 19 recites a device associated with a first user, a device associated with a second user, and an information processing apparatus. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. That is, the recitations of additional elements amount merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In fact, it is clear from the specification that only generic computing elements such a CPU, MPU, ASIC or FPGA are provided as the basis for technology for implementing the abstract idea. See paragraph [0035] of the instant specification. Such generically recited additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 17-19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 17-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of any of the independent claims, individually and in combination, are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. As noted above, the specification recites only generic computing elements as the environment for performing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1 and 17-19 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-16 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of identifying whether the first product matches the second product based on a product feature extracted for each resolution of a plurality of resolutions of a captured image of the second product and based on a product feature extracted for each resolution of a plurality of resolutions of a captured image of the first product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of identify that the first product matches the second product based on a feature of each section of a plurality of third sections and a feature of each section of a plurality of fourth sections, the plurality of third sections is obtained based on division of the second captured image, and the plurality of fourth sections is obtained based on division of the first captured image, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of identifying that the first product matches the second product based on: a product feature extracted from an image included in a first product video associated with the first product, and a product feature extracted from an image included in a second product video associated with the received second product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of acquiring product feature of the first product from a device of a first user, acquire a product feature of the second product from a device of a second user; collate the product feature of the first product with the product feature of the second product, and identify the received first product matches the second authentic product based on the collation of the product feature of the first product with the product feature of the second product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of storing first personal authentication information of a first user associated with the first product, acquire second personal authentication information of the first user from a device of the first user; collate the first personal authentication information of the first user with the second personal authentication information of the first user; and execute personal authentication of the first user based on the collation of the first personal authentication information of the first user with the second personal authentication information of the first user, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of execute personal authentication of a first user associated with the first product, based on personal authentication information, and the personal authentication information of the first user includes at least one of fingerprint information of the first user, iris information of the first user, or face information of the seller first user, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of storing first personal authentication information of a second user, wherein the second user is a purchaser of the second product, and acquiring second personal authentication information of the the second user from a device of the second user; collate the first personal authentication information of the second user with the second personal authentication information of the second user; and execute personal authentication of the second user based on the collation of the first personal authentication information of the second user with the second personal authentication information of the second user, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of execute personal authentication of a second user based on personal authentication information of the second user, and the personal authentication information of the second user includes at least one of fingerprint information of the second user, iris information of the second user, or face information of the second user, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of guiding a first user associated with the first product to capture an image of the first target frame, and output, to a device of the first user, information that prompts the capture of the image of the first target frame, or guide a second user to capture an image of the second target frame; and output, to a device of the second user, information that prompts the capture of the image of the second target frame, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of product identification information of the second product, personal authentication information of a first user associated with the first product, personal authentication information of a second user associated with the second product, product information of the second product, and product trade information indicating a transaction state of the second product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 14 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of storing product identification information of the second product, the personal authentication information of the first user, the product information of the second product, and the product trade information of the second product, based on a blockchain technology, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 15 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of operation to prompt a second user to input first product information related to the second product, wherein the execution of the operation is based on the identification that the first product matches the second product; and output, to the second user, information to prompt for an input of second product information, wherein the second product information is related to the second product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 15 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of acquiring the second product information from a device of the second user; and updating third product information related to the blank item related to a same type as the second product with the second product information, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-16 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims 7, 9, and 13 recite a memory, and claim 13 further recites using blockchain technology. These additional elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. That is, the claims provide no practical limits or improvements to any technology. Accordingly, dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-16 are also ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190228174 to Withrow et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210287028 to Iwamoto.
With regards to claims 1, 17, and 18, Withrow et al. teaches:
performs a central processing unit (CPU) (paragraph [0132]) configured to:
collate a first feature of a first target frame with a second feature of a second target frame (paragraph [0086], “FIG. 3 is a simplified flow diagram of an example process to implement a secure digital fingerprint key object database. In this process, the method comprises the following acts: provisioning a data store operatively coupled to the computing system for storing and accessing digital records, block 1502; initializing a key object record in the data store to store data associated with a physical key object, block 1504; storing a digital fingerprint of the key object in the key object record, block 1506; creating a digital record in the data store, block 1508; linking the digital record to the digital fingerprint of the key object to securely control access to the digital record, block 1510; receiving a tendered access key via a programmatic interface or user interface coupled to the computing system, block 1512; querying the data store based on the tendered access key to identify a matching digital fingerprint of a key object, block 1514; and in a case that the querying step identifies a matching digital fingerprint of a key object within a prescribed level of confidence (e.g., 75% confidence, 95% confidence, 99.999% confidence, or some other level of confidence), granting access to the linked digital record secured by the matching key object, block 1516.”), wherein the first target frame corresponds to a first section of a first captured image of a first product (paragraph [0060], “The key object will be used to secure access to a physical object 410 in this example. A digital fingerprint 412 of the key object is generated from scanned image data, for example, and the digital fingerprint is stored in a secure data store 420—here serving as the digital pedigree database. In the data store, a stored digital companion 422 is associated with the physical object 410.”),
the first feature is different from a plurality of third features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the first captured image, the second target frame corresponds to a first section of a second captured image of a second product, and the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the second captured image (as noted above, these features define the objects being photographed, not the claimed system, Paragraph [0050] describes “Comparison of Feature Detection and Matching Approaches: SIFT and SURF” which includes images of a building in different scales, such that different features such as roads and road signs may be included in one and not the other.);
identify that the first product matches the second product, based on the collation of the first feature of the first target frame with the second feature of the second target frame (paragraph [0041], “The computing system checks that the digital fingerprint properly matches the record for the key object in the digital record. If such a match is established, the computing system grants access to the digital record or digital object secured by the key object, circumscribed by, or otherwise in accordance, with permissions specified by the key object record.”; paragraph [0052], “In an embodiment, features may be matched, for example, based on finding a minimum threshold distance. Distances can be found using Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, or other suitable metrics. If distances of two points are less than a prescribed minimum threshold distance, those key points may be known as matching pairs. Matching a digital fingerprint may comprise assessing a number of matching pairs, their locations, distance, or other characteristics.”; paragraph [0131], “In these cases, the imager approaches an object while extracting progressively better (i.e., more information-filled) digital fingerprints until the system either successfully re-identifies the object or determines the object is not in its database. The system then reports the results as desired.”); but fails to explicitly teach a display device, though some of the devices in paragraph [0132] are understood to have associated displays. However, Iwamoto teaches
a display device (paragraph [0052], “Output device 400 performs output based on a control signal from object identification device 100. For example, output device 400 may be a display device such as a display or a terminal device including a display.”); and
control the display device to output a result of the identification indicating that the first product matches the second product (paragraph [0115], “FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an example of a display screen output by output device 400 when output device 400 is a display device or a terminal device including a display.”; paragraph [0116], “Output control unit 140 generates a control signal for causing a display unit such as a display to display a display screen in which information indicating a determination result is superimposed on a captured image. Based on the control signal generated by output control unit 140, output device 400 displays, on the display unit, a display screen in which the information indicating the determination result is superimposed on the captured image.”).
This part of Iwamoto is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the matching result display processes as taught by Iwamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide a more reliable authentication of objects without causing overload (see paragraphs [0005]-[0007] of Iwamoto).
With regards to claim 2, Withrow et al. teaches: identifying whether the first product matches the second product based on a product feature extracted for each resolution of a plurality of resolutions of a captured image of the second product and based on a product feature extracted for each resolution of a plurality of resolutions of a captured image of the first product (paragraph [0125], “In some embodiments, a method of progressive induction, authentication, and identification of objects, which at least in this case may be collectively referred to as “authentication,” is realized where the digital pedigree of a physical object is updated with higher-relevancy data as such data is obtained. In this way, the authentication may be progressively improved.”; paragraph [0126], “As the drone moves closer to other objects, it obtains higher resolution images, and the original, lower-scored digital fingerprint may be supplanted for higher-scored versions of those particular objects.”).
With regards to claim 5, Withrow et al. teaches: the identifying that the first product matches the second product based on: a product feature extracted from an image included in a first product video associated with the first product, and a product feature extracted from an image included in a second product video associated with the received second product (paragraph [0046], “Characterizing the points of interest may include assigning image values, assigning or otherwise determining a plurality of gradients across the image region, or performing some other technique. The extracted feature vectors may or may not be analyzed or further processed. Instead, or in addition, the extracted feature vectors that characterize the points of interest in a region are aggregated, alone or with other information (e.g., with location information) to form a digital fingerprint.”) included in a product video obtained by imaging the authentic product and based on a product feature extracted from an image included in a product video obtained by imaging the received product (paragraph [0038], “Various digital pedigree data, as described in the present disclosure, includes data associated with a particular physical object, context data, supplemental context data (e.g., location data, metadata, media such as audio and video, scientific data, sensor data, records of purchase, records of transfer of the associated physical object, certification data, authentication data, and many other types of data.”; paragraph [0054], “Images may, for example, be two dimensional (2-D), three dimensional (3-D), or in the form of video.”).
With regards to claim 6, Withrow et al. teaches: acquiring product feature of the first product from a device of a first user (paragraph [0051], “In an embodiment, features may be used to represent information derived from a digital image in a machine-readable and useful way. Features may comprise point, line, edges, blob of an image, etc. There are areas such as image registration, object tracking, and object retrieval etc. that require a system or processor to detect and match correct features.”), acquire a product feature of the second product from a device of a second user (paragraph [0027], “initializing a second key object record in the data store to store data associated with the second key object; storing a digital fingerprint of the second key object in the second key object record; and further linking the digital record to the digital fingerprint of the second key object to enable access to the digital record without requiring the first key object. The first key object may permit first access rights to the digital record and the second key object may permit second access rights to the digital record, where the second access rights are different from the first access rights. The linked digital record may include sensitive data so that the sensitive data is protected by requiring that a token comprising a digital fingerprint of the first or second key object be presented to access the sensitive data.”); collate the product feature of the first product with the product feature of the second product, and identify the received first product matches the second authentic product based on the collation of the product feature of the first product with the product feature of the second product (paragraph [0041], “The computing system checks that the digital fingerprint properly matches the record for the key object in the digital record. If such a match is established, the computing system grants access to the digital record or digital object secured by the key object, circumscribed by, or otherwise in accordance, with permissions specified by the key object record.”).
With regards to claim 7, Withrow et al. teaches: a memory configured to store first personal authentication information of a first user associated with the first product (paragraph [0133]), wherein the CPU is further configured to acquire second personal authentication information of a first user associated with the first product, acquire second personal authentication information of the first user from a device of the first user (paragraph [0023], “The method may further include receiving an access key via a third-party app or user interface; authenticating the access key based on identifying a matching key object record in the data store; and conditioned on the authenticated key granting rights to change access rights, changing the access rights to the corresponding digital record to enable use of credentials comprising at least one of a specified user name, a specified password, and a second key object defined by a digital fingerprint of the second key object.”; paragraph [0024], “The method may further include receiving an access key via a third-party app or user interface; authenticating the access key based on identifying a matching key object record in the data store;”);
collate the first personal authentication information of the first user with the second personal authentication information of the first user (paragraph [0087], “Digital pedigree and contextual data about each transaction or pedigree may be used by many parties, such as appraisers, distributors, resellers, and merchants. Data included as part of a pedigree may be pre-packaged or pre-authorized for use by the possessor of the object.”); and
execute personal authentication of the first user based on the collation of the first personal authentication information of the first user with the second personal authentication information of the first user (paragraph [0018], “receiving a tendered access key via a programmatic or user interface coupled to the computing system; querying the data store based on the tendered access key to identify a matching digital fingerprint of a key object; and in a case that the querying step identifies a matching digital fingerprint of a key object within a prescribed level of confidence, granting access to the linked digital record secured by the matching key object.”).
With regards to claim 8, Withrow et al. teaches the execute personal authentication of a first user associated with the first product, based on personal authentication information, and the personal authentication information of the first user includes at least one of fingerprint information of the first user, iris information of the first user, or face information of the seller first user (paragraph [0018], “receiving a tendered access key via a programmatic or user interface coupled to the computing system; querying the data store based on the tendered access key to identify a matching digital fingerprint of a key object; and in a case that the querying step identifies a matching digital fingerprint of a key object within a prescribed level of confidence, granting access to the linked digital record secured by the matching key object.”).
With regards to claim 9, Withrow et al. teaches:
storing first personal authentication information of a second user, wherein the second user is a purchaser of the second product, and acquiring second personal authentication information of the the second user from a device of the second user (paragraph [0024], “The method may further include receiving an access key via a third-party app or user interface; authenticating the access key based on identifying a matching key object record in the data store;”), and
collate the first personal authentication information of the second user with the second personal authentication information of the second user; and execute personal authentication of the second user based on the collation of the first personal authentication information of the second user with the second personal authentication information of the second user (paragraph [0027], “The computer-implemented method may further include receiving an access key tendered via a programmatic or user interface; authenticating a user as a proprietor of the digital record secured by the first key object based on the access key;”).
With regards to claim 10, Withrow et al. teaches: execute personal authentication of a second user based on personal authentication information of the second user, and the personal authentication information of the second user includes at least one of fingerprint information of the second user, iris information of the second user, or face information of the second user (paragraph [0118], “In one embodiment, digital companions and their related pedigrees may be used as a store for any biometric data for an individual or object. Consider examples, where specific data is collected related to an individual or object:”; paragraph [0119], “Unique behavior, such as gait or keystroke habit”; paragraph [0120], “Specific audio such as voice patterns”; paragraph [0121], “Digital fingerprints of an iris”; paragraph [0122], “Digital fingerprints of fingerprints”; paragraph [0123], “Thermal signature”).
With regards to claim 13, Withrow et al. teaches:
product identification information of the second product, personal authentication information of a first user associated with the first product, personal authentication information of a second user associated with the second product, product information of the second product, and product trade information indicating a transaction state of the second product (paragraph [0047], “The digital fingerprints are typically stored in a repository such as a register, a physical memory, an array, a database, data store, or some other repository. Storing the digital fingerprint in the repository may include or in some cases be referred to as inducting the respective physical object into the repository.”; paragraph [0083], “A sample record may correspond to one digital pedigreed object. The record may be maintained, for example, in a data store 1314 as shown in FIG. 2. The record may have fields including a record number, first pointers, an identifier of the object, security information, and second pointers. The first pointers may include for example, pointers to digital fingerprints of the pedigreed object, other identifiers, or models of the object, and other pedigree and transaction history data. Other fields in the record may comprise or point to one or more of a chain of possession table, a chain of title table, legal terms and conditions, or the like.”; paragraph [0094], “As a further elaboration of the embodiment, the information relevant to the transaction may be incorporated with distributed ledger technologies (e.g., blockchain) and/or cryptography-based currencies.”).
With regards to claim 14, Withrow et al. teaches: to store the product identification information of the second product, the personal authentication information of the first user, the product information of the second product, and the product trade information of the second product, based on a blockchain technology (paragraph [0094], “As a further elaboration of the embodiment, the information relevant to the transaction may be incorporated with distributed ledger technologies (e.g., blockchain) and/or cryptography-based currencies.”).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190228174 to Withrow et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210287028 to Iwamoto as applied to claim 1, 2, 5-10, 12-14, and 17-19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210117520 to Ross.
With regards to claim 3, Withrow et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Ross teaches:
identify that the first product matches the second product based on a feature of each section of a plurality of third sections and a feature of each section of a plurality of fourth sections, the plurality of third sections is obtained based on division of the second captured image, and the plurality of fourth sections is obtained based on division of the first captured image (paragraph [0031], “The present disclosure teaches, therefore, a process that generally includes selecting multiple regions, components, or regions of an object, defining what would make each of them authentic, defining which of them must be authentic for the object to be considered authentic, defining the physical and/or content-based relationships of the different regions, digitally fingerprinting the relevant regions, determining (if required) their contents, determining (if required) their positions (physical or logical), comparing all this with the references, and determining whether the object is authentic.”) obtained by dividing the captured image of the authentic product and based on a feature of each section of a plurality of sections obtained by dividing the captured image of the received product (paragraph [0029], “Reference objects are physical objects which have been previously “inducted” into the datastore, meaning that corresponding records are stored therein, the reference record for an object comprising various data including digital fingerprints for selected regions of the reference object. Other information associated with a region is described below.”; paragraph [0033], “This class identity can be used to access a corresponding template to define authentication requirements, and the class helps to limit the scope of querying the reference database. We also have to know what regions must match the reference database for the object to be considered authentic. In an embodiment, these can be identified in the corresponding class template.”).
This part of Ross is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the fingerprint region templates as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide a more reliable authentication of complex physical objects (see paragraphs [0004]-[0007] of Ross).
With regards to claim 19, Withrow et al. teaches:
a device associated with the first user, a device associated with the second user, and an information processing apparatus (paragraph [0132], “For example, a conventional portable device (e.g., mobile phone, smartphone, tablet, wearable computer, Internet of Things (IoT) device, and other such computing devices) is likely to include one or more processors and software executable on those processors to carry out the operations described.”),
wherein the device associated with the first user captures a product video of an first product associated with the first user (paragraph [0087], “Digital pedigree and contextual data about each transaction or pedigree may be used by many parties, such as appraisers, distributors, resellers, and merchants.”; paragraph [0132], “For example, a conventional portable device (e.g., mobile phone, smartphone, tablet, wearable computer, Internet of Things (IoT) device, and other such computing devices) is likely to include one or more processors and software executable on those processors to carry out the operations described.”), and extracts a product feature of an image included in the captured product video (paragraph [0048], “Digital fingerprints store information, preferably in the form of numbers or “feature vectors,” that describes features that appear at particular locations, called points of interest, of a two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) object.”),
the device associated with the second user captures a product video of an secodn product associated with the second user (paragraph [0062], “As noted at block 428, the holder controls access to the digital pedigree and can curate what is exposed to a third party. In one example, see block 430, the holder 402 may send a link such as a secure URL, to a buyer, bailee, renter, etc.”; paragraph [0077], “In operation, a third-party may receive a key object digital fingerprint from the proprietor, block 1320, for example, stored in a portable memory (e.g., thumb drive, flash drive, Internet of Things (IoT) device, wearable computing device, smart phone or other mobile device, or any other such portable memory), or accessed by a secure link or URL.”), and extracts a product feature of the image included in the captured product video ((paragraph [0048], “Digital fingerprints store information, preferably in the form of numbers or “feature vectors,” that describes features that appear at particular locations, called points of interest, of a two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) object.”);
and the information processing apparatus is configured to: (paragraph [0132]) configured to:
collate a first feature of a first target frame with a second feature of a second target frame (paragraph [0086], “FIG. 3 is a simplified flow diagram of an example process to implement a secure digital fingerprint key object database. In this process, the method comprises the following acts: provisioning a data store operatively coupled to the computing system for storing and accessing digital records, block 1502; initializing a key object record in the data store to store data associated with a physical key object, block 1504; storing a digital fingerprint of the key object in the key object record, block 1506; creating a digital record in the data store, block 1508; linking the digital record to the digital fingerprint of the key object to securely control access to the digital record, block 1510; receiving a tendered access key via a programmatic interface or user interface coupled to the computing system, block 1512; querying the data store based on the tendered access key to identify a matching digital fingerprint of a key object, block 1514; and in a case that the querying step identifies a matching digital fingerprint of a key object within a prescribed level of confidence (e.g., 75% confidence, 95% confidence, 99.999% confidence, or some other level of confidence), granting access to the linked digital record secured by the matching key object, block 1516.”), wherein the first target frame corresponds to a first section of a first captured image of a first product (paragraph [0060], “The key object will be used to secure access to a physical object 410 in this example. A digital fingerprint 412 of the key object is generated from scanned image data, for example, and the digital fingerprint is stored in a secure data store 420—here serving as the digital pedigree database. In the data store, a stored digital companion 422 is associated with the physical object 410.”), …
the first feature is different from a plurality of third features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the first captured image, the second target frame corresponds to a first section of a second captured image of a second product, and the second feature is different from a plurality of fourth features that corresponds to a plurality of second sections of the second captured image (as noted above, these features define the objects being photographed, not the claimed system, Paragraph [0050] describes “Comparison of Feature Detection and Matching Approaches: SIFT and SURF” which includes images of a building in different scales, such that different features such as roads and road signs may be included in one and not the other.);
identify that the first product matches the second product, based on the collation of the first feature of the first target frame with the second feature of the second target frame (paragraph [0041], “The computing system checks that the digital fingerprint properly matches the record for the key object in the digital record. If such a match is established, the computing system grants access to the digital record or digital object secured by the key object, circumscribed by, or otherwise in accordance, with permissions specified by the key object record.”; paragraph [0052], “In an embodiment, features may be matched, for example, based on finding a minimum threshold distance. Distances can be found using Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, or other suitable metrics. If distances of two points are less than a prescribed minimum threshold distance, those key points may be known as matching pairs. Matching a digital fingerprint may comprise assessing a number of matching pairs, their locations, distance, or other characteristics.”; paragraph [0131], “In these cases, the imager approaches an object while extracting progressively better (i.e., more information-filled) digital fingerprints until the system either successfully re-identifies the object or determines the object is not in its database. The system then reports the results as desired.”); but fails to explicitly teach a display device, though some of the devices in paragraph [0132] are understood to have associated displays. However, Iwamoto teaches to
control the display device to output a result of the identification indicating that the first product matches the second product (paragraph [0052], “Output device 400 performs output based on a control signal from object identification device 100. For example, output device 400 may be a display device such as a display or a terminal device including a display.”; paragraph [0115], “FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an example of a display screen output by output device 400 when output device 400 is a display device or a terminal device including a display.”; paragraph [0116], “Output control unit 140 generates a control signal for causing a display unit such as a display to display a display screen in which information indicating a determination result is superimposed on a captured image. Based on the control signal generated by output control unit 140, output device 400 displays, on the display unit, a display screen in which the information indicating the determination result is superimposed on the captured image.”).
This part of Iwamoto is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the matching result display processes as taught by Iwamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide a more reliable authentication of objects without causing overload (see paragraphs [0005]-[0007] of Iwamoto).
Withrow et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Ross teaches:
divide an image included in the captured product video of the second product into a plurality of second sections; and extract a plurality of second product features from the plurality of second sections (paragraph [0031], “The present disclosure teaches, therefore, a process that generally includes selecting multiple regions, components, or regions of an object, defining what would make each of them authentic, defining which of them must be authentic for the object to be considered authentic, defining the physical and/or content-based relationships of the different regions, digitally fingerprinting the relevant regions, determining (if required) their contents, determining (if required) their positions (physical or logical), comparing all this with the references, and determining whether the object is authentic.”) obtained by dividing the captured image of the authentic product and based on a feature of each section of a plurality of sections obtained by dividing the captured image of the received product (paragraph [0029], “Reference objects are physical objects which have been previously “inducted” into the datastore, meaning that corresponding records are stored therein, the reference record for an object comprising various data including digital fingerprints for selected regions of the reference object. Other information associated with a region is described below.”; paragraph [0033], “This class identity can be used to access a corresponding template to define authentication requirements, and the class helps to limit the scope of querying the reference database. We also have to know what regions must match the reference database for the object to be considered authentic. In an embodiment, these can be identified in the corresponding class template.”).
This part of Ross is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the fingerprint region templates as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide a more reliable authentication of complex physical objects (see paragraphs [0004]-[0007] of Ross).
Claims 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190228174 to Withrow et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210287028 to Iwamoto. as applied to claim 1, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080031495 to Saijo et al.
With regards to claim 11, Withrow et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Saijo et al. teaches:
guiding a first user associated with the first product to capture an image of the first target frame, and output, to a device of the first user, information that prompts the capture of the image of the first target frame, or guide a second user to capture an image of the second target frame (paragraph [0103], “This allows the visual recognition of the relation in size between the detected image 6 and the target image 8. Recognizing such a display, a user is prompted to adjust the distance between the photographed subject 4 and the lens 24 of the cellular phone 76 so that the outline of the detected image 6 is matched to the target image 8.”),
output, to a device of the second user, information that prompts the capture of the image of the second target frame (paragraph [0104], “As in the case of FIG. 11, this allows the visual recognition of the relation in size between the detected image 6 and the target image 8. Recognizing such a display, the user is prompted to adjust the distance between the photographed subject 4 and the lens 24 of the cellular phone 76 so that the outline of the detected image 6 is matched to the target image 8.”).
This part of Saijo et al. is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to image based authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the imaging instructions as taught by Saijo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide image captures for objects that are optimized for authentication processes (see paragraphs [0027]-[0030] of Saijo et al.).
With regards to claim 15, Withrow et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Saijo et al. teaches:
execute an operation to prompt a second user to input first product information related to the second product, wherein the execution of the operation is based on the identification that the first product matches the second product (paragraph [0102], “FIG. 10 depicts a state of display made at the recommended position where the detected image 6 matches the target image 8, thus in the optimum state to be ready for being taken in the detected image 6.”); and
output, to the second user, information to prompt for an input of second product information, wherein the second product information is related to the second product (paragraph [0104], “As in the case of FIG. 11, this allows the visual recognition of the relation in size between the detected image 6 and the target image 8. Recognizing such a display, the user is prompted to adjust the distance between the photographed subject 4 and the lens 24 of the cellular phone 76 so that the outline of the detected image 6 is matched to the target image 8.”).
This part of Saijo et al. is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to image based authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the imaging instructions as taught by Saijo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide image captures for objects that are optimized for authentication processes (see paragraphs [0027]-[0030] of Saijo et al.).
With regards to claim 16, Withrow et al. fails to explicitly teach, but Saijo et al. teaches:
acquire the second product information from a device of the second user (paragraph [0104], “As in the case of FIG. 11, this allows the visual recognition of the relation in size between the detected image 6 and the target image 8. Recognizing such a display, the user is prompted to adjust the distance between the photographed subject 4 and the lens 24 of the cellular phone 76 so that the outline of the detected image 6 is matched to the target image 8.”); and
update third product information related to the blank item related to a same type as the second product with the second product information (paragraph [0110], “When a comparison between the detected image 6 and the target image 8 demonstrates that the outline of the detected image 6 does not match the target image 8, an mismatching message indicating mismatching of both images is displayed (step S9). The process procedure then returns to step S3, from which steps S4 to S8 are executed again.”).
This part of Saijo et al. is applicable to the system of Withrow et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to image based authentication processes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Withrow et al. to include the imaging instructions as taught by Saijo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Withrow et al. in order to provide image captures for objects that are optimized for authentication processes (see paragraphs [0027]-[0030] of Saijo et al.).
Conclusion
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 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 Joshua D Schneider whose telephone number is (571)270-7120. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571)270-3445. 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.
/J.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights