DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 13, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 5, 8 and 13-20. Claims 1-17 are now pending have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2021/0264444), in view of Simmons (US20210174368A1), in view of Koren (US 2015/0235235 A1), in view of Yantis, (WO2020092900A2).
Regarding claim 1 Chen disclose:
A system (See at least Chen, Fig. 1; [0029] System) for verifying authenticity using blockchain operations, the system comprising: one or more processors (See at least Chen, [0116]); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions (See at least Chen, [0116]), which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, using an Internet-based application and from a client device in a proximity of an item, a request indicating (1) an identifier of the item collected by a scan of the item by the client device and (2) an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the client device, wherein the IP address indicates a location of the client device; (See at least Chen, Abs. Fig. 7; [0019-0020]; [0042; [0054]; [0063-0064]; [0100]; [0110]; where is received from a client device (i.e., user device) in a proximity of an item (e.g., when user scans) using an internet-based application (i.e., product verification application) a request indicating (1) an identifier of the item (i.e., code) collected by a scan of the item by the client device and (2) an IP address (i.e., product verification system may also retrieve device attributes associated with the user device... device attributes retrieved by the product verification system may include an Internet Protocol (IP) address,).)
generating, using the Internet-based application and based on the request, a first blockchain operation for a blockchain that transfers control of one or more cryptographic tokens from a first cryptography-based storage application associated with the client device to a second cryptography-based storage application, wherein the first blockchain operation stores the identifier of the item and the IP address; (See at least Chen, [0013-0017]; [0019-0020]; [0026]; [0052]; [0054-0055]; when a first blockchain operation (i.e., a request) is generated using internet-based application (i.e., product verification application) that transfers control of one or more cryptographic tokens (i.e., e.g.., when tokenized item is sent to authentication) from a first cryptography-based storage application associated with the client device (i.e., user device) to a second cryptography-based storage application (e.g., verification system and/or manufacturer), wherein the first blockchain operation stores the identifier (i.e., code) of the item and the first location (i.e., system retrieves location of user device).)
detecting, the first blockchain operation, having blockchain operation data associated with the first blockchain operation; the blockchain operation data indicating the identifier of the item and the IP address (See at least Chen, [0019- 0022]; [0026-0027]; [0054-0055]; retrieves images for analysis; when code is canned and The device attributes retrieved (e.g., IP address) by the product verification system may include a geographical location detected by a geographical component of the user device.)
retrieving, based on the identifier of the item, data (See at least Chen, [0047]; [0068] For example, the content management module 210 may determine a history of the instance of the product based on traversing the ledger 262 and accessing data associated with the corresponding token within the ledger 262 and in the data storage 260. In some embodiments, a hash of the product information from the data storage 260 in string format is stored as metadata on the corresponding token in the ledger 262.)
determining, based on the identifier of the item and based on the location of the client device indicated by the IP address, that the item is authentic, (See at least Chen claim 8 and claim 9; [0023-0024]; [0060-0062]; [0057] Where is determined based on the identifier of the item (i.e., code) and based on the location of the client device indicated by the IP address (i.e., location of the user device) matching a location of an entity possessing the item (e.g., the product verification system may check the device attributes (e.g., the device identifier, the time when the code is received, the geographical location of the user device that submitted the code, etc.) against device attributes of previously authentication requests…; (1) During the token minting process, the supply chain, product information, and a random seed code is generated and stored in the database in association with the token.; when a previous authentication request that includes the same code is received (i) from a device having different device attributes and located at a location that exceeds a threshold distance from the location of the user device 110.) that the item is authentic (i.e., product can be authenticated).
transferring control of the one or more cryptographic tokens from the second cryptography-based storage application back to the first cryptography-based storage application, based, using a second blockchain operation for the blockchain, and wherein the second blockchain operation stores the identifier of the item and an indication that the item is authentic to inform the client device that the item is authentic; (See at least Chen, [0017]; [0053]; [0072]; a similar manner, the verification manager 202 may provide a user interface on the vendor server 190 that enables the second entity to add content for the different tokens that have been transferred to the second entity… The content manager 210 may store the content provided by the second entity in association with the corresponding tokens. The verification manager 202 may facilitate the transfer of the tokens. The tokens may continue to be transferred to different entities in the supply chain of the product until the manufacturing of the instances of the product is complete. The tokens may then be transferred back to a wallet associated with the manufacturer.)
Chen not explicitly disclose, however Simmons teaches; continuously polling the blockchain for blockchain operations relating to the second cryptography-based storage application, by transmitting a request to a blockchain node of the blockchain and receiving a real-time copy of the blockchain from the blockchain node, detecting, based on continuously polling the blockchain, the first blockchain operation and blockchain operation data indicated in the real-time copy of the blockchain. (See at least Simmons Fig. 3A; Fig. 3B; Fig. 4-5; [0073-0074] To begin, at 501, the transaction processing platform parses a shadow blockchain to identify relevant aspects. As discussed herein, the shadow blockchain can be requested from an edge or shadow node of the distributed blockchain consensus network and received and processed to facilitate locally expediting blockchain transactions. At 503, the transaction processing platform indexes the relevant aspects of the shadow blockchain; At 505, the transaction processing platform receives a blockchain transaction request. The request can be initiated by an endpoint system, e.g., an end-user system or a gaming terminal or end-user gaming terminal interface system as shown and discussed in greater detail with reference to FIG. 7. Once received, at 507, the transaction processing platform determines whether the transaction can be expedited.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and include Simmons teachings in order to improve reliability and accuracy in detecting blockchain operations.
The combination of Chen and Simmons disclose receiving code of a tokenized item to be authenticated and then extracting user device location Chen [0019-0020]). The combination further disclose that tokens representing items are transferred among entities in the chain, and that each transfer is recorded in a blockchain ledger (Chen, [0013-0018]). Furthermore, the combination disclose using discrepancies in location data (e.g., different devices scanning the same code in distant locations) Chen [0023]. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose that is determined that the item is authentic based on a matching of the location of the user possessing the item and the location of the client device and retrieving, from a database on a data node and based on the identifier of the item, data indicating a location of an entity possessing the item.)
Koren, on the other hand teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention using location of the device and comparing that location to expected and or trusted location (i.e., retail allocation ) (e.g., entity possessing the item location) to determine an item is genuine and retrieve from a database on a data node and based on the identifier of the item, data indicating a location of an entity possessing the item (See at least Koren, [0013-0014]; [0019]; [0035-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the authentication system of Chen and Simmons that is able to track locations and include teachings provided by Koren such as authenticate item based on a trusted location, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination Chen, Simmons and Koren disclose the verification manager transfer the tokens from the wallet associated with the second entity to a wallet associated with a third entity in the supply chain. However, The combination does not explicitly disclose that the transferring of tokens is based on determining that the item is authentic.
Yantis, on the other hand teaches that the transferring of tokens to inform the client device that the item is authentic. (See at least Yantis, [0471]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the authenticity determination as taught by Yantis in the system/method/media of Chen, Simmons and Koren the motivation being to increase security by ensuring a subject matter expert deemed the item authentic (see Yantis, paragraph [0472]).
The portion which recites, “to inform the client device that the item is authentic” is intended use/result of the transferrin tokens back to the storage application.
The applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Regarding claims 5 and 13:
Claim 5: A method for verifying authenticity using blockchain operations, the method comprising:
Claim 13: One or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media (Chen, [0116-0117]) storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
detecting, a first blockchain operation that transfers control of one or more cryptographic tokens from a first cryptography-based storage application to the second cryptography-based storage application, wherein the and wherein the blockchain operation data indicates an identifier of an item and an Internet Protocol (IP) address, of a client device in a proximity of the item, that indicates a location of the client device; See at least Chen, [0019- 0022]; [0026-0027]; [0054-0055]; retrieves images for analysis; when code is canned and The device attributes retrieved (e.g., IP address) by the product verification system may include a geographical location detected by a geographical component of the user device.)
retrieving, based on the identifier of the item, data (See at least Chen, [0047]; [0068] For example, the content management module 210 may determine a history of the instance of the product based on traversing the ledger 262 and accessing data associated with the corresponding token within the ledger 262 and in the data storage 260. In some embodiments, a hash of the product information from the data storage 260 in string format is stored as metadata on the corresponding token in the ledger 262.)
determining, based on the identifier of the item and based on the location of the client device, indicated by the IP address, that the item is authentic; and (See at least Chen claim 8 and claim 9; [0023-0024]; [0060-0062]; [0057] Where is determined based on the identifier of the item (i.e., code) and based on the location of the client device indicated by the IP address (i.e., location of the user device) matching a location of an entity possessing the item (e.g., the product verification system may check the device attributes (e.g., the device identifier, the time when the code is received, the geographical location of the user device that submitted the code, etc.) against device attributes of previously authentication requests…; (1) During the token minting process, the supply chain, product information, and a random seed code is generated and stored in the database in association with the token.; when a previous authentication request that includes the same code is received (i) from a device having different device attributes and located at a location that exceeds a threshold distance from the location of the user device 110.) that the item is authentic (i.e., product can be authenticated).
transferring control of the one or more cryptographic tokens from the second cryptography-based storage application back to the first cryptography-based storage application, using a second blockchain operation, wherein the second blockchain operation stores the identifier of the item and an indication that the item is authentic. ; (See at least Chen, [0017]; [0053]; [0072]; a similar manner, the verification manager 202 may provide a user interface on the vendor server 190 that enables the second entity to add content for the different tokens that have been transferred to the second entity… The content manager 210 may store the content provided by the second entity in association with the corresponding tokens. The verification manager 202 may facilitate the transfer of the tokens. The tokens may continue to be transferred to different entities in the supply chain of the product until the manufacturing of the instances of the product is complete. The tokens may then be transferred back to a wallet associated with the manufacturer.)
Chen not explicitly disclose, however Simmons teaches; continuously polling the blockchain for blockchain operations relating to the second cryptography-based storage application, by transmitting a request to a blockchain node of the blockchain and receiving a real-time copy of the blockchain from the blockchain node, detecting, based on continuously polling the blockchain, the first blockchain operation and blockchain operation data indicated in the real-time copy of the blockchain; first blockchain operation has blockchain operation data indicated in the real-time copy of the blockchain. (See at least Simmons Fig. 3A; Fig. 3B; Fig. 4 – 5[ 0073-0074] To begin, at 501, the transaction processing platform parses a shadow blockchain to identify relevant aspects. As discussed herein, the shadow blockchain can be requested from an edge or shadow node of the distributed blockchain consensus network and received and processed to facilitate locally expediting blockchain transactions. At 503, the transaction processing platform indexes the relevant aspects of the shadow blockchain; At 505, the transaction processing platform receives a blockchain transaction request. The request can be initiated by an endpoint system, e.g., an end-user system or a gaming terminal or end-user gaming terminal interface system as shown and discussed in greater detail with reference to FIG. 7. Once received, at 507, the transaction processing platform determines whether the transaction can be expedited.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and include Simmons teachings in order to improve reliability and accuracy in detecting blockchain operations.
The combination of Chen and Simmons disclose receiving code of a tokenized item to be authenticated and then extracting user device location Chen [0019-0020]). The combination further disclose that tokens representing items are transferred among entities in the chain, and that each transfer is recorded in a blockchain ledger (Chen, [0013-0018]). Furthermore, the combination disclose using discrepancies in location data (e.g., different devices scanning the same code in distant locations) Chen [0023]. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose that is determined that the item is authentic based on a matching of the location of the user possessing the item and the location of the client device and retrieving, from a database on a data node and based on the identifier of the item, data indicating a location of an entity possessing the item
Koren, on the other hand teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention using location of the device and comparing that location to expected and or trusted location (i.e., retail allocation ) (e.g., entity possessing the item location) to determine an item is genuine and retrieve from a database on a data node and based on the identifier of the item, data indicating a location of an entity possessing the item (See at least Koren, [0013-0014]; [0019]; [0035-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the authentication system of Chen and Simmons that is able to track locations and include teachings provided by Koren such as authenticate item based on a trusted location, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The combination Chen, Simmons and Koren disclose the verification manager transfer the tokens from the wallet associated with the second entity to a wallet associated with a third entity in the supply chain. However, The combination does not explicitly disclose that the transferring of tokens is based on determining that the item is authentic.
Yantis, on the other hand teaches that the transferring of tokens to inform the client device that the item is authentic. (See at least Yantis, [0471]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the authenticity determination as taught by Yantis in the system/method/media of Chen, Simmons and Koren the motivation being to increase security by ensuring a subject matter expert deemed the item authentic (see Yantis, paragraph [0472]).
The portion which recites, “to indicate that the item is authentic.” is intended use/result of the transferrin tokens back to the storage application.
The applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Regarding claim 2, 8 and 16: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the system of claim 1, the method of claim 5 and storage media of claim 13. The combination further disclose wherein the instructions for determining that the item is authentic cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
comparing the location and the location of the of the entity possessing the item; and (See at least Koren, [0013-0014]; [0019]; [0038-0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the authentication system of Chen that is able to track locations and include teachings provided by Koren such as authenticate item based on a trusted location, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the system of claim 1. The combination further disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a notification of a third blockchain operation, wherein the third blockchain operation indicates a transfer of the item from an entity to the user, and wherein the third blockchain operation stores the identifier of the item and a target cryptography-based storage application; (See at least Chen, [0042]; [0021]; [0047]; [0055]; [0071]; )
determining that the entity is a valid transfer source; and (See at least Chen, [0022]; [0057])
generating a fourth blockchain operation, wherein the fourth blockchain operation transfers control of the one or more cryptographic tokens to be controlled by the target cryptography-based storage application. (See at least Chen, [0053])
Regarding claims 6 and 14: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the method of claim 5 and storage media of claim 13. Chen further disclose wherein the first cryptography-based storage application is associated with the client device and the second cryptography-based storage application is associated with a server, and wherein the first blockchain operation stores the identifier of the item for authenticity verification. (See at least Chen, (See at least Chen, Abs. Fig. 6; [0019-0022]; [0042]; [0030]; [0034]; [0054-0055]; [0072] (i.e., the system receives an image of the product and determine the token) and wherein the first blockchain operation stores an identifier of an item for authenticity verification (i.e., code of the product).)
Regarding claims 10 and 18: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the method of claim 5 and the storage media of claim 13. Chen further disclose:
detecting a third blockchain operation, wherein the third blockchain operation indicates a transfer of the item from the entity to a user, and wherein the third blockchain operation stores the identifier of the item and a target cryptography-based storage application; (See at least Chen, [0042]; [0021]; [0047]; [0055]; [0071]; )
determining that the entity is a valid transfer source; and (See at least Chen, [0022]; [0057])
generating a fourth blockchain operation, wherein the fourth blockchain operation transfers control of the one or more cryptographic tokens to be controlled by the target cryptography-based storage application. (See at least Chen, [0052-0053])
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 18. Chen further disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine, based on a flag associated with the third blockchain operation, that the third blockchain operation corresponds to a request to transfer the item associated with the identifier of the item to the user. (See at least Chen, [0013]; [0042]; [0052-0053])
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Simmons, Koren and Yantis as applied to claim 1, 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Holbrook et al (US 20230306088 A1.)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the system of claim 1. Chen further disclose the use of determining and obtaining user location, virtual location and location component to determine whether to authenticate a product, (See at least Chen [0055]; [0057]; [0110]; Claim 8). However The combination of Chen, Koren and Yantis does to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining a first virtual location associated with the first cryptography-based storage application, wherein the first virtual location comprises a first identifier of the Internet-based application; retrieving, based on the identifier of the item, a second virtual location of the entity possessing the item, wherein the second virtual location comprises a second identifier of an application hosted by the entity; comparing the first virtual location and the second virtual location; and based on determining that the first virtual location matches the second virtual location, determining that the item is authentic.
Holbrook, on the other hand, teaches that this concept was known in the art before the effective file date of the instant claims e.g., compare two virtual location to determine an item (e.g., article) is or is not counterfeit. (See at least Holbrook, [0039]; [0055]; [0070-0077]).
Therefore, 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 combination of Chen, Koren and Yantis and include Halbrook’s teachings in order to allow users to ensure that each electronic article dealt with is authentic (see Holbrook, paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claims 9 and 17: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the method of claim 5 and storage media of claim 13. Chen further disclose the use of determining and obtaining user location, virtual location and location component to determine whether to authenticate a product, (See at least Chen [0055]; [0057]; [0110]; Claim 8). However, Chen does to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining a first virtual location associated with the first cryptography-based storage application, wherein the first virtual location comprises a first identifier of an Internet-based application being accessed by the user; retrieving, based on the identifier of the item, a second virtual location of the entity possessing the item, wherein the second virtual location comprises a second identifier of an application hosted by the entity; comparing the first virtual location and the second virtual location; and based on determining that the first virtual location matches the second virtual location, determining that the item is authentic.
Holbrook, on the other hand, teaches that this concept was known in the art before the effective file date of the instant claims e.g., compare two virtual location to determine an item (e.g., article) is or is not counterfeit. (See at least Holbrook, [0039]; [0055]; [0070-0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and include Halbrook’s teachings in order to improve authentication of virtual items.
Claim(s) 7, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Simmons, Koren and Yantis as applied to claim 1, 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Rivlin et al (US 20160140570 A1.)
Regarding claims 7, 11 and 15: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the method of claim 5 and storage media of claim 13. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining, based on a flag within the blockchain operation data, that the first blockchain operation corresponds to a request to authenticate the item associated with the identifier of the item.
Rivlin, on the other hand, teaches determine that the first operation corresponds to a request to authenticate the item is based on a flag within the blockchain operation data (See at least Rivlin, [0080]; Claim 6. determine that the first operation corresponds to a request to authenticate the item is based on a flag within the blockchain operation data (i.e., authentication request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include in system of the above combination the feature of determining an operation as taught by Rivlin in order to enable efficient categorization of blockchain transactions.
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Simmons, Koren and Yantis as applied to claim 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Wright et al (WO 2017/178955 A1).
Regarding claim 12 and 20: The combination of Chen, Simmons and Koren and Yantis disclose the method of claim 10 and the storage media of claim 18. Chen further disclose wherein determining that the entity is the valid transfer source further comprises:
extracting, from blockchain data, a plurality of blockchain operations having the identifier of the item and a transfer acknowledgment flag; (See at least Chen, [0021]. However, Chen does not specifically disclose determining that a last blockchain operation is associated with an address of a cryptography-based storage application of the entity; and based on determining that the last blockchain operation is associated with the address of the cryptography-based storage application of the entity, determining that the entity is the valid transfer source.
Wright, on the other hand, teaches determining that a last blockchain operation is associated with an address of a cryptography-based storage application of the entity; and based on determining that the last blockchain operation is associated with the address of the cryptography-based storage application of the entity, determining that the entity is the valid transfer source. (See at least Wright, [0011]; [0014]; [0022] ; [0138]; [0143])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and include Wright’s teachings in order to enhance transaction security. Security is enhanced as a result of the verification technique” (see Wright, paragraph [0010].
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered and were found to be persuasive. Amendment pp. 13-15. Examiner contends that the claims still could be considered to be reciting one or more abstract ideas (e.g., receiving, retrieving and transferring item data to determine that the item is authentic), however, as indicated in applicant’s remarks (Amendment, pp. 13-14), the additional elements recited in amended claim 1 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In view of applicant’s arguments and the current claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 UC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698