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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 10th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on July 10th, 2026.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 13 has been added.
Claims 1 - 13 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejections on p. 7 – 10: Applicant’s arguments filed on July 10th, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites a technological improvement because the processing unit applies digital image-processing and identifying-element-design algorithms to select non-defect descriptive features having a specified spatial relationship to an identified defect. However, merely reciting that the claimed data selection and analysis are performed using algorithms does not, by itself, establish an improvement to computer functionality or another technology. The claimed algorithms remain recited functionally in terms of the results to be achieved—identifying a defect, selecting descriptive features according to their location relative to the defect, excluding the defect feature, generating an identifying element from the selected information, and using that identifying element for authentication—rather than as an improvement to the operation of the computer or image-processing technology itself.
Applicant’s reliance on the inability of a human to perform the claimed operations in precisely the claimed computerized manner is also not dispositive of eligibility. The eligibility analysis considers the claim as a whole and whether the additional computer implementation integrates the identified exception into a practical application. Here, the processing unit, image-processing algorithms, server, and electronic device are used to acquire, select, analyze, compare, and communicate information in furtherance of the authentication process. Applicant has not identified a claimed improvement in the functioning of those components themselves, as opposed to using those components to perform the authentication more particularly. Accordingly, the amendments do not alter the conclusion that the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained. See MPEP §§ 2106.04 and 2106.05(a), (f).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 103 rejections on p. 10 – 14: Applicant’s arguments regarding Knowles and Ross have been considered. Applicant argues that the cited combination does not teach or suggest the newly claimed defect-centered feature-selection operation, particularly selecting non-defect descriptive features located at the periphery of an identified defect or within a surrounding area having a predetermined or configurable width L, and thereafter generating the digital identifying element from those selected features while excluding the defect feature itself.
In view of the amendments, the rejection has been reconsidered and modified to address the newly added limitations. Although Knowles and Ross provide teachings relating to timepiece/object authentication, image-feature extraction, regions of interest, and generation and comparison of identifying feature information, the newly applied prior art further teaches capturing an image of a first zone of the timepiece to show tracks/flaws, which discloses identifying a defect and defining/analyzing a peripheral or surrounding region based upon the position of the detected defect. Thus, Applicant’s argument regarding the absence of these limitations from Knowles and Ross does not overcome the rejection as presently formulated.
Moreover, Applicant’s contention that KSR requires an express teaching or suggestion in Knowles or Riss to make the particular modification is not persuasive. The obviousness inquiry does not require an express written motivation to combine; rather, the Examiner must provide articulated reasoning having rational underpinning, and the reason may arise from the nature of the problem addressed and the combined teachings of the prior art. See MPEP §§ 2143 and 2143.01.
Accordingly, see below for the revised U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
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 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Firstly, it should be stated that claim 1 will be representative of the independent claim set.
Step 2A Prong 1: Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, selecting, comparing, and communicating information for purposes of authenticating an article, including identifying a defect, locating an area based on the defect, identifying graphical objects, selecting descriptive features according to their spatial relationship to the defect while excluding the defect feature, generating identifying information from the selected information, comparing the generated information with reference information, and communicating authentication information. These limitations constitute evaluation and judgment of information and therefore fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements—including the electronic device, processing unit, image acquisition module, server, database, interface, and recited digital image-processing and identifying these components to acquire and process image information and implement the claimed authentication analysis. Although claim 1 now specifies selecting non-defect features at the periphery of a defect or within a surrounding configurable-width region, the claim recites the “digital image processing algorithms” and “identifying-element design algorithms” functionally without specifying a particular algorithmic technique that improves operation of the computer, image-acquisition device, or image-processing technology itself. Rather, the computer components implement the information-selection and authentication process. Thus, the additional elements amount to using computer technology as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not provide a technological improvement under MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional electronic components perform their ordinary functions of image acquisition, processing, storage, comparison, networking, and output. The recitation of applying image-processing/design algorithms and selecting particular image information does not, without more, provide an inventive concept separate from the abstract information-analysis process itself. Accordingly, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
For dependent claims 3 – 6 and 9, these claims fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity. They describe additional limitations in the steps of:
Claim 3: applying identifying-element design algorithms to descriptive features while excluding features associated with structural or aesthetic defects— reciting “design algorithms” for feature selection is a generic invocation of mathematical processing.
Claim 4: selecting descriptive features at the periphery of the structural or aesthetic defect—periphery selection is a mental process or algorithmic parameter.
Claim 5: expanding the selection of descriptive features to an area surrounding the defect, with a configurable width— limiting the area of analysis to a configurable width ‘L’ is a mathematical/analytical rule and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6: associating the area of interest containing the defect with a reference area of the timepiece’s external parts. Claim 6 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because associating the area of interest containing the defect is a part of authenticating a timepiece.
Claim 9: introducing the role of a generating device contributing to the creation of reference digital identifying elements for the timepieces—directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim because the role of a generating device is a part of authenticating a time piece (i.e., data generation of identifiers for authentication). Further, it does not amount to an improvement in technology.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 2, 7 – 8 and 10, these claims recite additional elements that describe steps such as:
Claim 2: describing the acquisition step of a digital graphical representation of the timepiece through an image captured by the electronic device—generic computer function of using a digital camera.
Claim 7: defining the area of interest as being similar to a reference area archived in the server database—comparing with reference areas stored in a database is a routine computer function (lookup/matching).
Claim 8: recites a system comprising an electronic device, generating device, and server implementing the method connected via network—merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer system is insufficient.
Claim 10: (computer program) A computer-readable program implementing the ineligible method is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional elements merely implement the abstract idea of data collection and processing using generic computer technologies. The additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computing environment, as the claims describe high-level steps of selecting and processing data. The recited steps, such as selecting descriptive features and processing them, are expressed at a high level of generality and do not specify how these functions are distinctively achieved beyond generic methods. As a result, the additional elements are merely descriptive of the process and lack meaningful limitations that would transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For dependent claims 2 – 7, 9, and 11 – 13, the same analysis is incorporated. Dependent claims 2 – 7 further recite acquiring an image of the timepiece, applying identifying-element design algorithms, selecting non-defect descriptive features at the periphery of or surrounding the defect, defining the area of interest on an exterior portion of the timepiece, and comparing or associating that area with stored reference-area information. Claim 9 further specifies that the generating device contributes to creation of reference digital identifying elements. Claims 11 – 13 further define the defect-centered area from which descriptive information is selected, including an area surrounding the defect having a predetermined width, a circular area, and an area having a configurable surface area 5 – 10 times larger than the defect area. These limitations further refine what information is collected or selecting and the rules governing its analysis and therefore remain part of the abstract information-analysis process.
Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claim is directed to using abstract concepts such as image analysis and object identification being executed in a technical environment disclosed at a high level of generality. Neither the amended claims nor the specification discloses technical improvements to the underlying technology. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and fail under Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandini (U.S. Pub No. 20200134312 A1) in view of Ross (U.S. Pub No. 2015371087 A1) in further view of Sakai (U.S. Pub No. 20120141011 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Vandini discloses:
generating, via a processing unit of the electronic device, a digital identifying element from descriptive features of a digital graphical representation of the timepiece, said generating comprising [¶0008]: An image of a first zone is captured of the timepiece to identify tracks/flaws on the exterior of the timepiece;
identifying a structural and/or aesthetic defect that is present on an exterior of said timepiece [¶0008]: An image of a first zone is captured of the timepiece to identify tracks/flaws on the exterior of the timepiece;
after the identifying the structural and/or aesthetic defect, locating an area of interest on an exterior of the timepiece, the area of interest is located based on a position of the structural and/or aesthetic defect [¶0009 – 0011]: A first zone of the timepiece is selected containing relevant tracks/flaws, and the unique identifier may contain coordinates or other information permitting the zone to be located;
after the locating, identifying a plurality of graphical objects contained within the area of interest of said graphical representation [¶0012 – 0014]: Visually observable tracks/flaws within the first photographed first zone are identified and processed to create a fingerprint/identifier; and
confirming a validity of the generated digital identifying element, via a control unit of a server, by comparing the generated digital identifying element with a reference digital identifying element for the timepiece, said reference digital identifying element having been created when the timepiece was manufactured by a device for generating such a unique reference digital identifying element for the timepiece [¶0012 – 0015]: A unique identifier is stored within a database and is then later used to authenticate the timepiece by taking another photograph, converting the photographed features into a code. The new code is to be then compared against the stored unique identifier; and
Vandini does not disclose the limitations below. Thus, Ross teaches:
after the identifying the plurality of graphical objects, applying digital image processing algorithms and identifying-element design algorithms to said descriptive features of the identified plurality of graphical objects and selecting said descriptive features, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect contained in said area of interest, which are located on the spherical representation at a periphery of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, or in an area surrounding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, a width L whereof can be configured beforehand, and creating the digital identifying element from only the selected descriptive features such that the created digital identifying element does not include the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect contained in said area of interest of the graphical representation [¶0032]: The system captures an image of a specific region of a weapon including a structure. The system then isolates a first feature vector and stores it with association to the first image. Alternatively, [Fig. 1; ¶0039, 0048]: discloses scanning a U.S. passport to generate a scan to later be processed and authenticated via an original image of a verified U.S. passport. An authentication region is identified, which in this case would be the lower portion of the U.S. passport identified by the dashed box—an authentication image is then generated for feature extraction. Feature extraction algorithms are applied throughout the process and are not limited to: edge detection, corner detection, block detection, wavelet features, and other element-identifying algorithms. Furthermore, [¶0049]: Feature templates may be created in order to define specific authentication regions via an X-Y coordinate to list one or more features within the authentication region;
broadcasting, on the broadcasting interface of the electronic device, an identification code of a brand and/or a serial number of the timepiece so as to provide visual and/or audible authentication information for said timepiece in response to the validity of the generated digital identifying element is being confirmed Fig. 8; [¶0046]: The system captures an additional high-resolution image to be used in comparison with the first captured image. The system compares old and new serial number region images and calculates a match score;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image-based authentication method of Vandini with the digital-image processing and feature-extraction techniques taught by Ross in order to provide an automated and reliable means for processing an acquired image, defining an authentication region, selecting descriptive image features within the region, and generating identifying information form the selected features for subsequent authentication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Ross’s feature-selection and digital-fingerprinting techniques into Vandini’s authentication method would improve the consistency and reliability with which distinguishing visual characteristics of an object are identified and used for authentication. Such a modification constitutes the application of a known-image processing and feature-extraction technique to a similar image-based authentication system to obtain the predictable result of more reliably generating identifying information for comparison with reference information.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein said generating comprises a designing a digital graphical representation of the timepiece including a phase of acquiring, by the acquisition module of the electronic device, at least one image of all or part of the timepiece [¶0008]: Photographs of the timepiece are taken in order to identify ‘zones’ with sufficient enlargement;
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 2, and further teaches applying algorithms to convert the identified tracks/markings into a unique code [¶0012], but does not disclose applying identifying-element design algorithms. Thus, Ross teaches:
comprising a phase of applying identifying-element design algorithms to said descriptive features of the various identified graphical objects, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect [¶0039]: Feature extraction algorithms are applied throughout the process and are not limited to: edge detection, corner detection, block detection, wavelet features, and other element-identifying algorithms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Vandini’s disclosed method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication with image-processing and feature-selection, as taught by Ross, in order to provide a reliable and automated manner of selecting and processing descriptive image features for generation of the digital identifying element.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 3, and further discloses using a sufficiently enlarged portion of a first zone of an image captured of the timepiece to identify tracks/flaws. Vandini does not explicitly disclose using algorithms to perform selection of these features, thus Ross teaches:
wherein during the phase, the processing unit of the electronic device, by executing these algorithms, performs a selection of the descriptive features, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, which are located on the graphical representation at a periphery of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect [Figs. 4 – 5; [¶0071]: Exceptions of areas affected by deformations are noted and a digital ID (displayed by grayscale) are shown;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Vandini’s disclosed method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication with excluding descriptive features for structural and/or aesthetic defects of an item, as taught by Ross, in order to accurately identify authentic features and characteristics of a timepiece without the uncertainty brought upon by the physical wear/defect/blemishes.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 4, and further discloses applying algorithms to convert the identified tracks/markings into a unique code [¶0012], but does not disclose applying identifying-element design algorithms. Thus, Ross teaches:
comprising a phase of applying identifying-element design algorithms to said descriptive features of the various identified graphical objects, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, during the phase, the processing unit of the electronic device, by executing these algorithms, performs a selection of the descriptive features, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, which are located on the graphical representation in an area surrounding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, a width L whereof can be configured beforehand [Figs. 4 – 5; ¶0071]: Exceptions of areas affected by deformations are noted and a digital ID (displayed by grayscale) are shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify Vandini’s method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication with excluding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, as taught by Ross, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication to improve accuracy and robustness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that defects on the surface of a timepiece could introduce variability that undermines consistent identification.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 5, and further discloses:
wherein a reference area of interest and said area of interest each form a part of the exterior of the timepiece comprised/illustrated on/in the graphical representation, this area containing said structural and/or aesthetic defect [¶0008 – 0009]: A photograph of the timepiece is taken to identify a first zone, which may include scratches, markings, tracks. Each flaw is identified and given its own unique identification fingerprint to undergo further processing;
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 6, and further discloses:
wherein the area of interest is similar to a reference area of interest for said timepiece which is archived in a database of the server [¶0002, 0013 – 0015]: An original authentication of a verified piece via chip, bar code, RFID) is stored within a database which is to be later used for comparison and authentication.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 9.
Vandini does not disclose processing units as it presents method steps. Thus, Ross teaches:
when said program is executed by the control unit and the processing units respectively of the server and of the generating and electronic devices of a system [¶0116]: One or more processors as well as software executable instructions are disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the authentication method of Vandini with the processor-based implementation taught by Ross in order to automate the image-processing, feature-extraction, and authentication operations taught by Ross in order to automate the steps of image-processing, feature-extraction and authentication operations of Vandini using programmable processing hardware. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that implementing Vandini’s authentication functions using the processors and executable instructions taught by Ross would provide an efficient and automated means for performing the required data and image-processing operations.
Claims 8 – 9, and 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandini (U.S. Pub No. 20200134312 A1) in view of Ross (U.S. Pub No. 2015371087 A1) in further view of Knowles (U.S. Pub No. 20220164590 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 7, including storing authenticated timepiece information within a database to be later used for comparison/authentication purposes [¶0002].
Neither Vandini nor Ross explicitly disclose the limitations below. Thus, Knowles teaches:
a generating device and a server implementing the method according to claim 1, the electronic device comprising an interface for the visual and/or sound broadcasting of information, an image acquisition module, and a processing unit capable of implementing digital image processing algorithms and identifying-element design algorithms, and the server comprising a database comprising reference digital identifying elements, the system comprising a wireless and/or wired network architecture connecting the electronic device to said server [Fig 1; ¶0017]: Watch feature data is stored in the database of a plethora of timepieces in order to generate one or more match scores. [Fig. 1; ¶0020 – 0021]: A user interface can be a GUI paired with communication by a software program via the network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified Vandini’s method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication with excluding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, as taught by Ross, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication, with that of an graphical user interface display in order to provide a user with a convenient visual interface for presenting information associated with the authentication process, including identification and/or authentication information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a known display into an electronic authentication system would predictably facilitate communication of authentication results to the user and improve user interaction with the system. Such a modification would have amounted to the use of a known display according to its established function and would have yielded the predictable result of visually presenting authentication information to a user.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 8, and further discloses:
wherein the generating device is capable of contributing to the creation of reference digital identifying elements for timepieces [¶0008 – 00010]: Features are selected via the photographed first zone and are assigned their own unique identification fingerprint. Each track can be visible with sufficient enlargement and are saved into the database as its own unique flaw;
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 10.
Neither Vandini nor Ross disclose the limitation below. Thus, Knowles teaches:
wherein the area of interest is determined to be an area that surrounds the position of the structural and/or aesthetic defect and has a predetermined width [¶0043 – 0046]: The hand-held imaging system is able to identify defects or anomalies and analyzes localized regions associated with those defects. [Examiner’s Note: Such localized analysis necessarily involves selecting a region surrounding the detected defect, where the region has a spatial extent corresponding to the portion of the image being processed. This spatial extent reasonably corresponds to the claimed “predetermined width,” as the region being analyzed must have defined boundaries for processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify Vandini’s method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication methods with that of Ross’s feature selection and processing algorithm methods with Knowles’ feature transformation algorithm to identify and select features in a configurable area, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication to improve accuracy and robustness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that defects on the surface of a timepiece could introduce variability that undermines consistent identification.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 11, and further discloses:
wherein the area of interest is circular [¶0015; Figs. 2 - 3]: The embodiment teaches the structural and feature analysis of a watch, which are not limited to color, size, shape, band type, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify Vandini’s method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication methods with that of Ross’s feature selection and processing algorithm methods with Knowles’ feature transformation algorithm to identify and select features in a configurable area, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set regarding any structure is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication to improve accuracy and robustness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that defects on the surface of a timepiece could introduce variability that undermines consistent identification.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Vandini and Ross discloses all the limitations of claim 1 – 12, and further discloses:
wherein the selected descriptive features are located in the area surrounding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, the area surrounding the descriptive feature having a surface area S that can be configured beforehand, and wherein the surface area S is 5 to 10 times larger than a surface area of the structural and/or aesthetic defect in the area of interest [¶0015; Figs. 2 - 3]: The embodiment teaches the structural and feature analysis of a watch, which are not limited to color, size, shape, band type, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify Vandini’s method for identifying a timepiece and unique authentication methods with that of Ross’s feature selection and processing algorithm methods with Knowles’ feature transformation algorithm to identify and select features in a configurable area, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set regarding any structure is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication to improve accuracy and robustness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that defects on the surface of a timepiece could introduce variability that undermines consistent identification.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nishiyama (U.S. Pub No. 20060012780 A1) is pertinent because it recites a “method of inspecting pattern defects can detect target defects in various processes stably by reducing erroneous detection of grains and morphology and decreasing the influence of an intensity nonuniformity in interference light.”
Bolliger (U.S. Patent No. 3756066A) is pertinent because it is related to “testing a timepiece to determine its rate (for example, in seconds per day).”
Sanwald (U.S. Patent No. 10102407B2) is pertinent because it is related to “generating a package identifier includes generating an image of a portion of a surface of a substrate of the package, generating a serial number of the package from the image, the serial number being based on at least one surface feature of the portion of the surface, and affixing a visual indicator on the package that is based on the serial number.”
Callegari (E.P. Pub No. 3036587 A2) is pertinent because it is related to “timepiece having at least one quartz oscillator and/or at least one transducer.”
Daguet (WO Pub No. 2019224125A1) is pertinent because it is related to “collecting, saving, analysing and issuing the results of the analysis (10) of mechanical watch data.”
Reese (U.S. Patent No. 4078420 A) is pertinent because it is related to “an analyzer for producing a digital display of the rate of deviation of a solid state wristwatch from a predetermined norm.”
Vandini (U.S. Pub No. 20200134312 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “a method for identifying a timepiece.”
Knowles (U.S. Pub No. 20220164590 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “identifying the authenticity and provenance of watches, and more specifically, to cataloguing and authenticating watches based on physical features or attributes of the watches and analyses of the faces of the watches.”
Ross (U.S. Pub No. 20150371087 A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “methods and apparatus to identify or authenticate physical items, including documents, and to detect counterfeit items.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights