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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10, 16, 18, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 10, there is no antecedent basis for “the smart contract” that is claimed as underlying the blockchain because no smart contract has previously been recited in the claim scope. Blockchain as a technology does not inherently require a smart contract. Some blockchain technology does use smart contracts but the reference to using blockchain at line 5 of claim 10 does not provide antecedent basis for the claimed smart contract. This renders the claim indefinite. Also, the claim recites “using blockchain technology or a traditional database system”. What is the meaning of a traditional database system as opposed to a non-traditional database system? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite. Additionally, because the claim allows for a traditional database system to be in the scope (due to the language of “or”), does this require that the reassignment be managed through the API and not through the smart contract of the blockchain? If the use of blockchain is not required in the claim scope due to the use of “or”, does that mean that the embodiment that is reciting the traditional database system also requires the API? If there is no blockchain being used, then how can the claim recite that the reassignment can be managed through the smart contract of blockchain? This causes confusion as to the claim scope and renders the claim indefinite.
For claim 16, there is no antecedent basis for “the three-dimensional scanning” that is acquired by the claimed laser scanning devices. Claim 16 depends to claim 15 that depends to independent claim 8. None of the claims in the dependency chain recite 3D scanning, this is found in dependent claim 11. It is not clear what the 3D scanning is referring to because none has previously been recited. This renders the claim indefinite.
For claims 18, 19, the preamble recites that the claim is directed to a use of the system of claim 1; however, the applicant does not recite any limitation directed to the actual use of the system. The claim recites the reason why one might use the system of claim 1, but is not actually reciting any steps that would constitute a use of the system. One trying to avoid infringement would not know what the claimed use for the system is, other than being “in order to” guarantee or inform about ownership and possession of a moveable property. What is the use that is being claimed? What are the steps that define the use of the system of claim 1? Nothing has been claimed about the use of the system so the claim is indefinite. There are no functions or steps recited that would define the boundaries imposed on the claim and that would be defining the claimed use that is envisioned in claims 18, 19. The claim is/are indefinite and reads more like a preamble with no body of the claim and no transitionary phrase being recited. The scope of the claim can be ascertained. Prior art will be applied to the claim as it is best understood by the examiner.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of verifying the authenticity of a product/item by using codes (data) that can be compared to stored codes to determine authenticity.
Using claim 8 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
generating a record comprising:
- a code (4) associated with a movable property (2),
- related information and one or more owners of the movable property (2) and/or the certificate of authenticity of the movable property (2),
wherein each code (4) corresponds to a movable property (2) and one or more owners of said movable property and/or a certificate of authenticity of said movable property;
generating a label (3) including the code (4)
applying the label (3) on the movable property (2),
transmitting said code (4)
returning the tracking and/or ownership and/or certificate of authenticity of the movable property (2)
The abstract idea of claim 8 is also defined by the elements below from claim 1 that claim 8 depends from:
a label (3) comprising a code (4),
- a list of codes (7) associated with said movable properties (2),
- a list of owners of movable properties (8) and/or a list of certificates of authenticity (9) of said movable properties;
wherein each code (4) of the list of codes (7) corresponds to a movable property (2) and to one or more owners of said movable property and/or to a certificate of authenticity of said movable properties (2)
The above limitations are reciting the concept of verifying the authenticity of an item so that a prospective buyer of the item can be provided with a guarantee as to the authenticity of the item. This is being done so that counterfeit goods can be detected so that a buyer is protected from purchasing a fraudulent counterfeit item that is being represented as an authentic item. The claim elements that define the abstract idea are considered to be a fundamental economic practice of authenticating an item in the context of a sale of an item. This could be done when a person is buying an item, such as rare artwork or rare baseball cards or other items where it would be desirable to provide a certificate of authenticity. Sotheby’s is well known as providing authentication of products so that their value can be determined or confirmed. The concept of authenticating the authenticity of a product represents a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. The claims recite a judicial exception which is the abstract idea of verifying the authenticity of an item so that a prospective buyer of the item can be provided with a guarantee as to the authenticity of the item.
With respect to the claimed label, while this does define structure to a real world article, this is considered to be part of the abstract idea as far as a code has to be embodied in some kind of substrate to be read by a scanner such as a laser scanner or bar code scanner. The claimed label is broadly recited at a high level of generality and can be a paper tag that contains a code written on the paper tag where a person is the one attaching the label/tag to the moveable property. The use of a tag for the label, that can be a paper tag attached to the product by a human being, has been considered to be part of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the examiner notes that for the claimed steps/functions that define the abstract idea, a human being can read a code on a paper label that is attached to a moveable product such as a painting, and a human can use the code to look up the claimed information about the authenticity of the item as has been recited to compare the code to the stored data to authenticate the property. A human being such as a company employee can create codes for products and can store the codes and their association to an owner in a paper database that can be used to look up the codes to authenticate a given piece of property and verifying ownership. Absent the recitation to the use of a computer in the form of the reading system and network to connect to a data storage system, the claimed step/functions can be performed by a person, and would constitutes claiming human activity. A person can also manually apply a label containing a code to a product by stitching or by gluing the label to the product as is recited in claim 8. A person can record the code in association with the product using pen and paper so that ownership and authenticity can be verified and tracked. The claimed elements that define the abstract idea are defining human activity.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are:
a reading system configured to transmit and/or connect through a web network to a data storage system
For claim 8, the additional elements are the recited:
the data storage system
the reading system and web network (to connect/transmit the code)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device(s) (the claimed reading system, the data storage system) that are connected by a web network such as the Internet, that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited reading system (a smartphone, barcode scanner, etc.) that is connected to a network so that it can communicate with a remote database system to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web). Even when one considers that the claimed reading system can be a bar code scanner or a laser scanner or a smartphone (see paragraphs 041, 042 of the specification), this is still nothing more than a mere instruction for one to use a computing device to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The claimed reading system can be a smartphone that can scan a code, which is reciting a generic type of computing device. The data storage system is also reciting the use of a computer system to store data, such as a remote server for data storage. The use of the reading system that can connect to a data storage system via a web network is an instruction for one to use connected computers to perform the abstract idea. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by amount to the use of a computing device (the claimed reading system), a web network such as the Internet, and a data storage system (remote storage computer system) that is being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device that is connected to a network so that it can communicate with a remote database system to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web), as was stated above for the 2nd prong analysis. The use of the reading system that can connect to a data storage system via a web network is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea and does not amount to reciting significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f) in this regard. The claims 1 and 8 do not recite any additional elements that provide for significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 2, claiming that the label is a tag is still considered to be part of the abstract idea. The tag can be a paper tag with a code on the tag. This is part of the abstract idea as was set forth for claims 1, 8, above. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, reciting that the code is an alphanumeric code and/or is any other code that is suitable to identify a product, is a further embellishment to the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1. The code itself is part of the abstract idea so further defining the code is simply further defining the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, the applicant is claiming the goods that are the product, such as a luxury good (can be anything depending on what a person perceives luxury to be), or “accessories”, which can be anything. The applicant is reciting a field of use limitation for the abstract idea as far as the types of products it can be used with. This does nothing more than to indicate a field of use for the system to verify ownership or authenticity by claiming the products the system can be used with, where the system will function the same regardless of the type of product it is used with. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more because this is a field of use limitation, see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is not considered to be eligible because there is no integration into a practical application and because at step 2B the claim does not recite significantly more.
For claims 6, 15, 16, the applicant is reciting blockchain as the data storage system, and recites that it is based on NFTs. This is considered to be an additional element that is claiming a general link to a particular technological environment which is that of blockchain technology. Blockchain that is based on NFTs is known to be used to store information in a secure and immutable manner. The applicant is just using blockchain for what it is designed for, and is using it in its ordinary capacity such that the link to blockchain is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea, and/or can be construed as a general link to the field of blockchain in general. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) in this regard. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 7, the applicant recites that the system includes a printer to print a certificate of authenticity. The certificate of authenticity is considered to be part of the abstract idea. The use of the printer is recited as being to print a document, which is using a printer in its ordinary capacity to print a document, which in this case is the certificate of authenticity. The use of the printer is an instruction for one to use a printer to generate the certificate of authenticity, as opposed to a person writing it using pen and paper. This is the same as reciting “apply it” with a printer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
For claim 9, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the abstract idea that was found for claims 1 and 8. Claiming that an owner or a future owner sends a sale offer or a purchase proposal, sending the property to the future owner, having the future owner transmit the code for storage, and updating “manually” to record a transfer of ownership, etc. are elements directed to an offer for sale and the subsequent sale of a property (an item of some kind) and recordation of the change in ownership, which is claiming more about the abstract idea. This is claiming what occurs when a property is sold to a new owner. The claimed steps that are recited as being “optionally”, are optional and not required for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, but are none the less also directed to elements that are part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 10, reciting that a producer manufactures a product, the assignment of the ownership to itself or a distributor, in a case of refund or other legal agreement, are taken as claim elements that serve to define the abstract idea. The claimed producer that is producing a product reads on a human being making something for sale, such as a handmade item. The assigning of the ownership as claimed is the rendering of an association or a correlation between the product and the owner of the product, and is also part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of a traditional database system, and the use of an API are further instructions for one to practice the abstract idea using computers, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Because that the traditional database system can be a hard drive of a server, and knowing that an API is simply software code that executes a function, taken together with the claim as a whole, these elements are simply a further instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using generic computing technology. This does not render the claims as being integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
For claim 11, only one of the recited steps is required in the claim scope due to the use of “further comprising at least one of the following steps that precedes step a)” language. The claimed performing of an organoleptic analysis is by definition an analysis that is using the sense of a person such as sight, smell, taste, or touch. This is claiming a person smelling or feeling or maybe tasting the material of the property to mentally determine if the product is authentic, similar to how people touch US currency and can note a difference in the feel of a real or fake bill. This is reciting more about the certain method of organizing human activities in the form of human activity itself. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 12, 13, the examiner notes that for the claim scope, the claims are not further requiring that the step be a 3D scanning or a chemical analysis. The scope for claim 11 is open to just one of the steps being present, and the examiner has addressed the organoleptic analysis step. The dependent claims do not change this fact or further limit the grouping of claim 11. The dependent claims do not further recite that the “at least one of” is modified by be only claiming one of the recited elements, so what has been claimed is satisfied by what has been addressed for claim 11. However, even when considering the laser scanning using a smartphone or the use of spectrophotometry, etc., is claiming the use of a generic device (smartphone) that is an instruction for one to use a computing device to perform steps that define the abstract idea, and is claiming different chemical analysis protocols that are simply being used to do what they are designed to do, which is to obtain chemical analysis results. The use of spectrophotometry to do what it does, which is to obtain spectral bandwidth data. This is at most the use of a device in its ordinary capacity and does not render the claim eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 14, the claimed scanning of the code is not tied to any technology and can be a person reading the code from the label that is attached to the product, so that they can look up the code and verifying the ownership certification as claimed. This is considered to be reciting more about the abstract idea. No further additional elements have been claimed for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 17, claiming that the certificate is a paper certificate is considered by the examiner to be part of the abstract idea. Paper certificates have been used by people to certify various things or products and is something accomplished by a person generating a certificate using pen and paper. This is reciting more about the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 18, 19, while the claim scope is not clear as far as the claimed use that is being recited, as best understood by the examiner the claim is reciting the guarantee of ownership of an item (property) and the authenticity. This is the goal if performing the abstract idea and is itself considered to be part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14, 18, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engels et al. (20150134552).
For claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 18, 19, Engels teaches a system and method for authenticating items by using labels/tags that are attached to items where the label/tag includes coded information that is used to authenticate the items. In general see paragraph 039, 042 where an overview of the invention of Engels is provided. The items/products of Engels are considered to satisfy the claimed “moveable properties” that is defining an item/product. Engels discloses that products/items are provided with a label that includes a unique code. The item is 111 and a label or tag is disclosed as being element number 112. The tag or label can be attached to the items by using adhesive or by any of the numerous methods disclosed in paragraph 045. Disclosed is that the label can be attached to the item by adhesive, printing, etching, and Engels teaches that the code can be numbers, letters, symbols, QR codes, and bar codes. Engels also teaches the use of an RFID tag in paragraph 045 , and paragraph 048 teaches the use of NFC tags, which satisfies the claimed “tag” of claim 2. Also see paragraph 098 that teaches the use of NFC tags. The claimed code is satisfied by the disclosure in paragraphs 047, 048. Disclosed is that the label/tag includes coded data, such as by use of a QR code, and teaches that the data of the label/tag includes unique product identifying data such as a unique electronic product code, or a serial number. The claimed reading system is satisfied by the reader 120 of Engels, that is used to interrogate the label/tag to receive the code, so that authentication can occur. See paragraphs 043, 053 for disclosure to the reading system of Engels. The reader system is disclosed as being an RFID tag reader or NFC tag reader, or a barcode scanner that reads a barcode. The reader system is also disclosed as being the use of a smartphone to scan a QR code or bar code. The claimed connection of the reading system through a web network to a data storage system is satisfied by Engels teaching that the reading device communicates the label/tag data to a remote system for authentication. See paragraphs 054, 056. The remote authentication system is 170 and stores data that is used to authenticate the product and that allows for ownership tracking of the product. The data storage system includes the codes, list of owner(s) and also stores certificates of authenticity, see paragraphs 056, 074, and 116 where the claimed data is disclosed as being stored by the authentication system of Engels. The system stores the codes that are associated with the products, lists of owners and history of ownership for an item, and also stores any generated certifications of authenticity. The unique product identifiers of Engels are uniquely identifying the products and correspond to the products and the owners and a certificate of authenticity as claimed. This is how Engels works, codes for products are stored in association with ownership information so that authentication of the products can occur when one scans the label or tag for authentication information. Engels anticipates what is claimed.
For claims 18, 19, using the system of Engels to verify the authenticity of an item satisfies the claimed “use of the system of claim 1” that informs a user of the ownership and authenticity of the item. This satisfies what is claimed as the claims are best understood by the examiner.
For claim 5, Engels teaches that the system can be used to authenticate a golf club, see paragraph 134. This satisfies the claimed luxury good or accessories as these terms are broadly recited and are relative terms that do not define any particular type of moveable property (item).
For claim 10, the items of Engels have been produced by a manufacturer as claimed, and the initial registration of the item in the system and initial association with an owner satisfies what is claimed. The fact that the ownership can be reassigned in the future is not a step to the method but is a possibility, and Engels teaches that the ownership can change (reassigned). This satisfies what is claimed. There is no reassignment occurring in the claim scope, just the ability to do so.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 15, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engels et al. (20150134552) in view of Rivkind et al. (20190340623).
For claims 6, 15, not disclosed by Engels is that the system uses blockchain based on NFTs to act as the data storage system.
Rivkind teaches a product authentication system that verifies authenticity of products based on proof of ownership, tracks transfer of ownership, and is used to prevent risk of counterfeits or fraud. This is analogous to the teachings of Engels that from the same field of endeavor. Rivkind teaches that the system uses a distributed ledger system such as blockchain to confirm and validate ownership of items. See paragraphs 007, 008, 040.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Engels with the ability to use a blockchain distributed ledger system to store the item data and to provide for authentication of the items based on the codes associated with the items. This would yield the predictable result of allowing the system of Engels to be used with blockchain so that the advantages of the use of distributed ledgers can be realized in the system or Engels. This is just using the system of Engels with blockchain technology so that the trust in the data and verification process can be increased, as is found with the use of blockchain technology.
For claim 16, due to 112b issues with the clarity of the claim, the claim has been interpreted to be reciting the use of NFTs as was recited in claim 15. This is considered to be satisfied by what has been addressed for claim 15.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engels et al. (20150134552).
For claims 7, 17, not disclosed by Engels is that the system includes a printer that can print the certificate of authenticity, and/or that the certificate of authenticity is a paper certificate. The examiner takes official notice of the use of printers to print documents and that fact that certificates of authenticity in paper format are well known in the art, and is how certificates of authenticity were provided before the invention of modern day computers. Those of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to a user of the system of Engels who is verifying the authenticity of a product, and that is provided with a verified certificate of authenticity as is disclosed by Engels in paragraph 074. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Engels with a printer so that a user can print a paper copy of the certificate of authenticity that is disclosed as being provided to the user in paragraph 074. The use of a printer to print important documents is something that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate and would find obvious to use with the system of Engels.
For claim 9, not disclosed by Engels is that the owner of the property or a future owner sends the other a proposal for purchase or sale, and that when the offer is accepted, the moveable property is sent to the future owner, that includes sending the property and the label that includes the code, where the new owner can register the property with the data storage system that is updated with the transfer of ownership information. The claimed steps that are recited as being “optionally” are not required in the claim scope due to the steps being optional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Engels with the feature of an owner or future owner sending a purchase offer or offer for sale, so that a change of ownership can occur when the owner wants to sell the moveable property or when a future owner wants to buy the moveable property. This limitation is claiming an offer for sale or an offer to buy, and is something that is obvious and flows from having a change of ownership for an item, which is disclosed by Engels. With respect to sending the property and the label to the future owner, and the future owner sending the data to the data storage system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if a sale occurs, the item that has the attached label is to be sent to the new owner, and the new owner can use the label and coded data of the label to authenticate the item when it arrives, and so that the ownership information can be updated as desired by the new owner.
Claims 11-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engels et al. (20150134552) in view of Hylands (WO02/12872).
For claim 11, not disclosed by Engels is that one of the claimed analysis is performed, such as the claimed organoleptic analysis (a person using their senses to examine the property).
Hylands discloses that it is known in the art to determine if a product is authentic by performing an organoleptic evaluation. This is the act of a human being using their senses to examine the property to determine if it is authentic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Engels with the ability to allow a user to perform an organoleptic analysis of the property and comparing the results to what is expected to determined authenticity. This the act of a person using their sense of vision and touch or even smell to examiner given piece of property, much like a person feeling a $20 bill to determine if the bill is counterfeit or is a legitimate bill. Using an organoleptic analysis as claimed is the act of having a person inspect the item and its material to determine authenticity, and is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For claims 12, 13, the scope for the claims is open to just one of the steps of claim 11, and the examiner has addressed the organoleptic analysis step. The dependent claims 12 and 13 do not further recite that the “at least one of the following steps” is one of them specifically, as opposed to still being open to just one of the steps recited in claims 12, 13. What has been claimed is satisfied by what has been addressed for claim 11 when one keeps in mind the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim that controls in examination.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engels et al. (20150134552) in view of Schuster et al. (20100060452).
For claim 3, Engels does not teach that the label/tag attached to an item is an adhesive label that comprises a button connected to a communication system, where the button is on part of the adhesive of the label.
Schuster teaches a system and method of indicating if an RFID tag has been tampered with. This is considered to be analogous to Engels because Engels teaches the use of RFID and NFC tags for ensuring that an item is authentic and for item tracking. Disclosed is that the RFID tag has an adhesive patch that includes a button that is depressed when attached to an item, and is depressed when the label is removed from the item. When the adhesive tag is removed from the item it is attached to, the button 106 is no longer being depressed and activates the RFID tag to produce a signal that indicates tampering has occurred. See paragraph 050 of Schuster.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Engels with an adhesive label/tag that includes a button as claimed, that is used to trigger an RFID (a communication system) to produce a signal that indicates tampering has occurred with the label/tag. This would be desirable to provide Engels so that one can determine if the tag itself has been tampered with. If the tag has been tampered with then that would be an indicator of fraud and is something one of ordinary skill in the art would want to know when authenticating an item.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dobaj teaches a product authentication system that is considered to be relevant to the claimed invention. Disclosed is the use of unique product identifiers on labels that can be scanned to determine authenticity.
Schibi et al. (20160314474), Mandel et al. (20160296810), are also directed to product authentication systems that are relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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 at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626