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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are under examination.
IDS filed on 04/17/2026 has been considered.
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 of this title, 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, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia et al. (US 2016/0358186 A1), Narayanaswami et al. (US 2021/0281395 A1) and Armledr (US 2021/0234678 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Radocchia et al. discloses A system, comprising: a physical object; an authentication device integrally attached to the physical object [abs, “An identity system for the Internet of Things (IOT) that enables users and machines to identify, authenticate and interact with products and collectibles… The system includes wireless tamperproof tags coupled to products”], the authentication device comprising: [[an antenna]]; a processor; a secure enclave comprising a private key uniquely associated with the physical object via a public key stored in a blockchain [par. 0026, “the tag 103 is able to be an external tag that comprises a tamperproof body 202, a tamperproof fastening mechanism 204 (e.g. a ring), with the body 202 housing an authentication circuit 206. The body 202 and/or fastening mechanism 204 are able to be formed by a single contiguous piece of plastic such that the circuit 206 is entirely sealed within the body 202 and/or fastening mechanism 204. As a result, the circuit 206 cannot be physically removed or tampered without breaking the body 202 and/or fastening mechanism 204. Additionally, the body 202 and/or fastening mechanism 204 are able to be coupled with the circuit 206 such that decoupling of the tag 103 from the item 102 damages the circuit 206 such that the circuit 206 is unable to be read and/or transmit any stored data, or the circuit 206 transmits warning data indicating that tampering occurred”, par. 0005, “the identity tags each storing a private key and a unique identifier and configured to enable the unique identifier to be wirelessly read but prevent the private key from being read from the tag”, par. 0005, open registry include public key and unique identifier… the open registry is a blockchain, par. 0027, “the circuit 206 is able to store a unique identifier and a private key and wirelessly communicate with the readers 105 of the devices 104.”]; and memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive signals comprising a challenge element [[via the antenna]]; identify the challenge element as corresponding to a verification request; sign the challenge element with the private key to produce a verification token for authentication of the physical object; and transmit signals comprising the verification token [[via the antenna]] [par. 0005, “receiving the challenge message the identity tag is configured to digitally sign the challenge message thereby generating the digital signature based on the private key stored in the identity tag and transmit the digital signature to the mobile device”], wherein the verification token enables authentication of the physical object via the public key stored in the blockchain [par. 0005, “the mobile device includes an identity verification function that, upon reading the unique identifier of the identity tag of one of the items, causes the mobile device to generate and transmit a challenge message to the identity tag, transmit the unique identifier to the registry and access the public key associated with the unique identifier from the registry, receive a digital signature from the identity tag and authenticating the item by determining if the digital signature was generated by the private key stored in the identity tag using the accessed public key”].
Radocchia et al. does not explicitly disclose the authentication device comprising an antenna; receive signals and transmit signals via the antenna.
However Naraya et al. in the same field relates to a mechanism for securely delivering readable tag data associated with a physical object to a remotely located blockchain teaches the authentication device comprising an antenna; receive signals and transmit signals via the antenna [par. 0053, The tag may include an antenna for wireless radio frequency communication with a reader].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Naraya et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al. with the motivation of receiving, via a network, tag data that is read from a tag associated with a physical object and signed with a key assigned to the tag as taught by Naraya et al. [Naraya et al.: abs.].
They do not explicitly disclose the secure enclave comprises a secure portion of the memory dedicated for use by a cryptography application and inaccessible to other applications.
However, Armledr teaches the secure enclave comprises a secure portion of the memory dedicated for use by a cryptography application and inaccessible to other applications [par. 1093, “The secure enclave of the device 200 can be a hardware-based key manager that is isolated from the main processor to provide an extra layer of security. When a private key is stored in the secure enclave, it is only handled inside the secure enclave. That is, the secure enclave can create the key, securely store it, and perform operations with it. Only the output of these operations, such as encrypted data or a cryptographic signature is provided outside the secure enclave”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Armledr into the teaching of Radocchia et al. and Naraya et al. with the motivation to provide an extra layer of security as taught by Armledr [Armledr: par. 1093].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. further discloses register the public key and a unique identifier associated with the physical object in the blockchain [par. 0005, “the open registry enables each of a plurality of entities to upload one or more of the public keys and the unique identifiers to the registry … the open registry is a blockchain”].
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. further discloses register an owner of the physical object in the blockchain [par. 0005, “the open registry stores item information including a chain of ownership that defines a sequence of owners of the item and a sequence of transactions between pairs of the owners that conferred the ownership of the item between the pairs … the open registry is a blockchain”].
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. further discloses the authentication device comprises a digital cryptographic processor [par. 0027, the circuit 206 is able to digitally sign a challenge message received from a device 104 (via the reader 105) using the private key and transmit the digital signature back to the device 104 for authentication of the item 102, par. 0046, processor].
Regarding claim 11, it recites limitations similar to claim 1. The reason for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, it recites limitations similar to claim 3. The reason for the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, it recites limitations similar to claim 4. The reason for the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 19, it recites limitations similar to claim 1. The reason for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claims 2, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia et al. (US 2016/0358186 A1), Narayanaswami et al. (US 2021/0281395 A1) and Armledr (US 2021/0234678 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 above, and further in view of Verschoor et al. (US 2022/0148378 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. further discloses provision the public key, the private key, and a unique identifier associated with the physical object [par. 0005, “the public key is associated with the private key stored on the identity tag coupled to the item… the open registry enables each of a plurality of entities to upload one or more of the public keys and the unique identifiers to the registry”].
Armledr further discloses wherein the cryptography application is stored in the secure enclave [par. 1093, “the secure enclave can create the key, securely store it, and perform operations with it. Only the output of these operations, such as encrypted data or a cryptographic signature is provided outside the secure enclave”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Armledr into the teaching of Radocchia et al. and Naraya et al. with the motivation to provide an extra layer of security as taught by Armledr [Armledr: par. 1093].
They do not explicitly disclose the challenge element comprises a random numeric item generated based on a randomization function.
However, Verschoor et al. teaches the challenge element comprises a random numeric item generated based on a randomization function [par. 0115, server then generates a challenge, e.g., a random number, and sends it to device… Playing card then applies the cryptographic function to the challenge].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Verschoor et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al., Narayanaswami et al. and Armledr with the motivation to make counterfeiting the card harder as taught by Verschoor et al. [Verschoor et al.: par. 0014].
Regarding claim 12, it recites limitations similar to claim 2. The reason for the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 20, it recites limitations similar to claim 2. The reason for the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Claims 5, 8, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia et al. (US 2016/0358186 A1), Narayanaswami et al. (US 2021/0281395 A1) and Armledr (US 2021/0234678 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 above, and further in view of Bulawski et al. (US 2022/0284447 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. further discloses ownership of the physical object in the blockchain [par. 0005, “the open registry stores item information including a chain of ownership that defines a sequence of owners of the item and a sequence of transactions between pairs of the owners that conferred the ownership of the item between the pairs … the open registry is a blockchain”].
They do not explicitly disclose transfer ownership of the physical object from a first owner to a second owner in the blockchain.
However Bulawski et al. teaches transfer ownership of the physical object from a first owner to a second owner in the blockchain [par. 0066, “The backend module 103 may update an association between a unique identifier of the NFC tag 107 and a new owner to indicate that the new owner now owns the product. The backend module 103 may store a record of each transaction and/or request for a transaction on the blockchain”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Bulawski et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al., Narayanaswami et al. and Armledr with the motivation for authenticating physical products via NFC tags as taught by Bulawski et al. [Bulawski et al.: par. 0115].
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. and Narayanaswami et al. disclose the physical object.
They do not explicitly disclose removal of the authentication device from the physical object destroys functionality of at least one of the antenna, the processor, the secure enclave, and the memory.
However Bulawski et al. teaches removal of the authentication device from the physical object destroys functionality of at least one of the antenna, the processor, the secure enclave, and the memory [par. 0027, “the NFC tag 107 may be a sticker tag glued to a security seal and the security seal is threaded through a hole in the product (e.g., a shoelace hole); cutting the loop breaks the seal and removing the sticker from the seal destroys the NFC chip. As another example, the NFC tag 107 may be a folding sticker with an integrated NFC chip and a long antenna loop. The antenna loop may be threaded through a hole in the product (e.g., a shoelace hole); cutting the antenna loop or opening the folding sticker changes the state of the NFC chip inside the NFC tag 107, allowing for detection of tampering”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Bulawski et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al., Narayanaswami et al. and Armledr with the motivation for authenticating physical products via NFC tags as taught by Bulawski et al. [Bulawski et al.: par. 0115].
Regarding claim 15, it recites limitations similar to claim 5. The reason for the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, it recites limitations similar to claim 8. The reason for the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia et al. (US 2016/0358186 A1), Narayanaswami et al. (US 2021/0281395 A1) and Armledr (US 2021/0234678 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 above, and further in view of Spivack et al. (US 2022/0366061 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. and Narayanaswami et al. disclose the physical object comprises a first physical object and the instructions.
They do not explicitly disclose the physical object comprises a first physical object and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to associate the first physical object with a second physical object in the blockchain to register a composite item comprising the first physical object and the second physical object in the blockchain.
However Spivack et al. teaches the physical object comprises a first physical object and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to associate the first physical object with a second physical object in the blockchain to register a composite item comprising the first physical object and the second physical object in the blockchain [par. 0115, “a given NFT is governed by a smart contract that permits a certain number of printed copies of the content of the NFT to be produced. Only those permitted copies are considered authentic and can have a security devices on them for verification of authenticity. A smart contract for an NFT can specify registration of security devices linked to a limited or unlimited number of physical reproductions of content of the NFT. For instance, an NFT with a limited number of physical reproductions would only authorize that many to be registered. For example, an NFT with a maximum of 10 authorized physical reproductions can have 10 physical prints generated (printed with security devices on them) and registered within that NFT smart contract”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Spivack et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al., Narayanaswami et al. and Armledr with the motivation to enables them to request and prove presence and authenticity of physical objects via the security device on those physical objects as taught by Spivack et al. [Spivack et al.: par. 0115].
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. further disclose the second physical object is integrally attached to a second authentication device comprising a second processor, and a second secure enclave comprising a second private key uniquely associated with the second physical object via a second public key stored in the blockchain [par. 0005, “the identity tags each storing a private key and a unique identifier and configured to enable the unique identifier to be wirelessly read but prevent the private key from being read from the tag”, par. 0005, open registry include public key and unique identifier… the open registry is a blockchain].
Naraya et al. further teaches second authentication device comprising a second antenna [par. 0053, The tag may include an antenna for wireless radio frequency communication with a reader].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Naraya et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al. with the motivation of receiving, via a network, tag data that is read from a tag associated with a physical object and signed with a key assigned to the tag as taught by Naraya et al. [Naraya et al.: abs.].
Regarding claim 16, it recites limitations like claim 6. The reason for the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, it recites limitations like claim 7. The reason for the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated herein.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia et al. (US 2016/0358186 A1), Narayanaswami et al. (US 2021/0281395 A1) and Armledr (US 2021/0234678 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14 and 19 above, and further in view of Jacobsen et al. (US 2018/0132559 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Radocchia et al. and Narayanaswami et al. disclose the physical object.
They do not explicitly disclose a portion of the physical object is interwoven with the antenna to integrally attach the authentication device to the physical object.
However Jacobsen et al. teaches a portion of the physical object is interwoven with the antenna to integrally attach the authentication device to the physical object [par. 0012, “FIG. 5 is a cross sectional view of another embodiment of a cushion having vertically extending tensile members connecting plies of an air bladder with an NFC antenna interwoven with the tensile members”].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Jacobsen et al. into the teaching of Radocchia et al., Narayanaswami et al. and Armledr with the motivation such that authentication information from the manufacturer of object (shoe as example) can be stored in microchip to verify the origin of object and to be discreet and protected from tampering and wear as taught by Jacobsen et al. [Jacobsen et al.: par. 0033].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 01/28/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but the arguments are directed towards the newly added limitations. New reference has been provided to address those limitations, and the rejection is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 12107962 B1 Blockchain Based Integrated Circuit Authentication
US 20230274244 A1 TRADING ANALYTICS FOR CRYPTOGRAPHIC TOKENS THAT LINK TO REAL WORLD OBJECTS
US 20230274268 A1 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MINTING NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS AT A POINT OF SALE
US 20230245137 A1 BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROTECTING BRANDS, OPERATORS AND CONSUMERS AGAINST COUNTERFEITING
US 20230169492 A1 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFECTUATING REAL-WORLD OUTCOMES BASED ON DIGITAL ASSETS OF USERS
US 20230135947 A1 NON-FUNGIBLE PHYSICAL FABRIC TOKEN SYSTEM
US 20230031817 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHENTICATING AND CERTIFYING A PHYSICAL ITEM, AND CORRESPONDING CERTIFIED PHYSICAL ITEM
US 20220329446 A1 ENHANCED ASSET MANAGEMENT USING AN ELECTRONIC LEDGER
US 20220294630 A1 PHYSICAL ASSET CORRESPONDING TO A DIGITAL ASSET
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3393. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights