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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 03/23/2026 is entered. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 9 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, and claims 10-20 depend from claim 9.
2. Telephone Interview:
A telephone interview was conducted on March 03.2026 at the request of the Applicant’s representative, and the summary mailed 03/05/2026 is reproduced below for ready reference:
Date of Interview: 03 March 2026.
Issues Discussed:
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's submitted interview agenda is attached. Additional amendments were discussed to the two independent claims: " generated by a computer system during a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package" and to add the computer system is coupled to a printer which is configured to print or prints a physical label of the unique identifier" On receipt of the amendment it would be subject to reconsideration and search.”.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026, see page 7, “ Patentability of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. Q 101 . Although Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejections under § 101, the claims have been amended based on the Examiner's suggestions to advance prosecution. The Examiner agreed, during the interview of March 3, 2026, that such amendments would likely overcome the § 101 rejections. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of all rejections and allowance of all claims. “, have been fully reconsidered but they are not persuasive, because when reconsidered and analyzed per Steps 2A, and 2B, they recite an abstract idea and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or “Significantly More” for an inventive concept, as per the details provide below in paragraph 4 under 35 USC 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-8 are to a system comprising a secure network, and claims 9-20 to a process comprising a series of steps, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A secure network for uniquely identified objects, the secure network comprising:
a receiver for:
(i) receiving electronic data about one or more uniquely identified items, wherein the electronic data includes a unique identifier of an item of the one or more uniquely identified items,
(ii) wherein the unique identifier was generated by a computer system during a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package;
(iii) receiving multimedia associated with the item, wherein the multimedia includes at least one image of the person unveiling of the item from the package, and wherein the at least one image was captured during the video session and is separate from the unique identifier; and
(iv) storing the unique identifier and the multimedia in a record for the item in a computer database;
(v) the computer database for storing the electronic data about the one or more uniquely identified items as well as information generated within the secure network;
(vi) wherein the secure network is configured to provide a user with access to the multimedia; and
(vii) wherein the computer system is coupled to a printer that is configured to print a physical label comprising the unique identifier.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ wherein the unique identifier was generated during a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package;” under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in mind and fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts including observation, comparison and evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, the steps of generating a unique identifier for an item an include a human operator providing sequencing numbering or combining different pieces of data such as item part number with date of purchase for an item while its package being opened and at the same time the unboxing the package can be recorded via a video camera which does not require any specific computer function. Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8 recite “Mental Processes”.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ provide a user with access to the multimedia;” under their broadest reasonable interpretation relates to human interactions of enabling a user to access multimedia such, as, text, or video related to unboxing the package falling within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and such access can also relate to preliminary part of a sales activity, described in the dependent claims 7-8.
Since the other independent claim 9 recites similar limitations as considered for claim 1 above, it and its dependent claims 10-20 are analyzed on the same basis as reciting “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”
”. Since each of the claims 1, and 9 with their dependent claims 2-8, and 10-20 respectively recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Thus claims 1-20 recite abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of:
a receiver for:
(i) receiving electronic data about one or more uniquely identified items, wherein the electronic data includes a unique identifier of an item of the one or more uniquely identified items,
(ii) wherein the unique identifier was generated by a computer system during a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package;
(iii) receiving multimedia associated with the item, wherein the multimedia includes at least one image of the person unveiling of the item from the package, and wherein the at least one image was captured during the video session and is separate from the unique identifier; and
(iv) storing the unique identifier and the multimedia in a record for the item in a computer database;
(v) the computer database for storing the electronic data about the one or more uniquely identified items as well as information generated within the secure network;
(vi) wherein the secure network is configured to provide a user with access to the multimedia; and
(vi) wherein the computer system is coupled to a printer that is configured to print a physical label comprising the unique identifier.
The limitations in steps (i), (iii) , (iv), (v) and (vi) are mere data gathering, storing and providing/outputting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim, because they amount to necessary data gathering, providing access to data/outputting and storing. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, these limitations are recited as being performed by a computer of a secure network. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving, providing/outputting and storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in steps (iii), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in step (vii) recites using a printer connected to a device for printing, which is a generic computer function and a long standing practice of using computer coupled to printers for printing before the effective date of the claimed invention and these claim limitations do not reflect an improvement in carrying out printing function, wherein a printer is coupled to the computer.
Accordingly, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not indicative of any of the following meaningful limits, see “ MPEP 2106.04 (d)::
• An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a).
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b).
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c).and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
Thus, the additional elements, even considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Since the limitations of the other independent claim 9 are similar to those one considered for claim 1, claim 9 is analyzed on the same basis as do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims :
Claim 2 merely recites that a human operator generates the information about the item, claims 3 rand 12 recite including a storage vault, claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 recite storing data, claims 5, 14, and 17-18 recite non-functional descriptive subject matter, claim 6 recites that the information is generated using generic functions a conducting a video session, claims 7-8 relate to selling activity and updating the records, updating information on items when they are sold, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 10-11 and 20 are directed to describing the video session and the image as streaming video over a social network and a video respectively which are descriptive and do not recite any meaningful computer functions. Claims 16 recite gathering and storing data and claim 19 recites providing access at different levels for recording data, which are generic computer functions. Thus, the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 are directed to the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Thus claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements including receiving data, providing access to data/outputting data, and storing data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
5.. Prior Art Discussion:
NPL reference:
(i) Cardmarket - Magic, Video: Card Grading Behind the Scenes (published on YouTube on Jan 6, 2022, herein now referred as CM) cited in the IDS filed 12/2/2025 [see Fig 2 “Filming Package quantity unknown….So we film every package we open to see what is inside” ”, Fig 3, “printer with adhesive sticker printed to check the card on a database inside package is real” Fig.4 : Physical instance of label”, Fig 5 “ Sealing Process with unique identifier and object into a new container”, ….] describes generating, by a processor, a film of every package of card that is opened to see what it is, and identify the object/card inside on a physical adhesive label by printing the information including the card name and a QR code that can be used to check the card on a database to verify if it is real and then it is repacked with the label, but CM fails to teach explicitly at least the limitations, “receiving electronic data about one or more uniquely identified items, wherein the electronic data includes a unique identifier of an item of the one or more uniquely identified items, wherein the unique identifier was generated by a computer system during a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package, receiving multimedia associated with the item, wherein the multimedia includes at least one image of the person unveiling of the item from the package, and wherein the at least one image was captured during the video session and is separate from the unique identifier.”
(ii) Johnson [US 20230044043 A1; see Abstract] describes grading and trading of sport trading cards describes
(iii) Garbos [ US 20230419577 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/23/2025 , see para 0234] in the field of electronically presenting gifts to other person teaches providing a video capturing an experience of opening a card [greeting] or a package shopping and other information associated with the product/object and such a video can include an image of the person /receiver opening the package. Garbos fails to teach that the unique identifier was generated by a computer system during or after a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package.
(iv) Fry [US 2017/0278212 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/23/2025; see para 0032] describes a user/recipient picks up his package sent from a sender and in order to acknowledge to the sender the user/recipient video records the exact condition of the package and also the video session of the package being opened “…..embodiments may be configured for the package “recipient” to log into their account, pick up their package, and acknowledge to the sender that the package has been received. If there are any damage or item issues relating to the package, the “recipient” can video record the package as received and transmit to the sender the exact condition as received. In this way, both the sender and the recipient have video evidence of the package as sent and as received, respectively. Thus, for an additional layer of protection, the recipient can video record the package being opened for the first time to ensure that the package has not been altered or touched in any way by the recipient and transmit to the sender the exact condition as received.”]
(v) Reference independent claims 1 and 9, the prior art of record cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/06/2025 including the references Goodwin [US Patent 8360207 B1], Newman et al. [US Patent 8502644 B1], Masherah et al. [US 20170213265 A1], Beguesse [US 20210272176 A1] , and the references of CM, Garbos and Fry cited above along with other references of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, as a whole, “ receiving electronic data about one or more uniquely identified items, wherein the electronic data includes a unique identifier of an item of the one or more uniquely identified items, wherein the unique identifier was generated by a computer system during a video session capturing a person unveiling the item from a package, receiving multimedia associated with the item, wherein the multimedia includes at least one image of the person unveiling of the item from the package, and wherein the at least one image was captured during the video session and is separate from the unique identifier.”
For reference:
(v) EP 1071496 B1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/06/2025; see page 2 describes a process for dynamic marking of a sports article, not only to uniquely identify an article, but also to manage information temporary, such as the identity of the owner or tenant, the condition of the equipment at the time of rental, the date of passage in a control zone, and more generally all information corresponding to a specific use of equipment and helps in identifying a sports article, consisting in sticking a label radio frequency to the item, wherein the label comprises an identification of said sports article by equipment exterior including a reading of a unique identifier registered in a first memory area within said radio frequency tag, and data storage transmitted by said external equipment in a second rewritable memory area within said label radio frequency.
5. Allowability: If the independent claims 1 and 9 are amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the application can be placed in condition for allowance. However, all amendments would be subject to reconsideration and search.
Conclusion
Final Rejection:
6. 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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights