DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Non-Final Rejection. This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on December 16, 2025.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that “the claimed invention is no longer simply ‘managing data’ or ‘issuing warnings’ using generic computers.” Remarks at 10. However, the claims recite limitations for certifying that a product is genuine, which is an abstract idea as explained in the rejection.
Applicant further argues that the amendments to the claims provide “a technical improvement in the field of digital watermarking and image processing.” Remarks at 11. However, the Specification has been reviewed and although there is a discussion of the claimed watermarking, there is no indication that Applicant invented a new watermarking process or improved an existing watermarking technology.
Applicant further asserts that “[t]he watermark signal is not merely printed data; it has a functional relationship with the user terminal and server: the system cannot perform the claimed certification and distribution tracking functions unless the watermark is present in the label, detected via pattern-based correction, and decoded into an identification.” Remarks at 12. Applicant argues that “the labels, in combination with the user terminal and server, integrate any abstract business purpose into a concrete, technical application: machine-readable watermark labels physically attached to products enable automated, hardware-driven authenticity checks and counterfeit mapping, not mental or manual inspection.” Id. However, only a programmed general purpose computing device is needed to extract information from watermark labels.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims are similar to Enfish and Ancora because “they describe how the machine does something in a structurally and algorithmically specific way, not merely what business goal is achieved.” Remarks at 13. However, here, the watermark labels and extractor are being used to achieve a business goal and not to improve technology.
Applicant further argues that the lack of prior art rejection suggests that the claimed combination is well understood, routine, and conventional.” Remarks at 13-14. However, novelty and nonobviousness of claims do not indicate that claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(I) (“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”). Additionally, the rejection does not assert that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Instead, the additional elements are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible for the same reason as the parent application. Remarks at 14. However, each application has its own facts and the parent claims are distinct from the instant claims.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
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 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-13, which recite a system that comprises a “server comprising at least one processor…” and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
1. An integrated certification system for performing integrated certification on products to which genuine-product certification labels are attached, the integrated certification system comprising:
a plurality of genuine-product certification labels, each genuine-product certification label comprising genuine-product certification content into which an identification number assigned to a corresponding product is invisibly inserted as a watermark signal and in which a sync pattern or an edge pattern is provided at each corner of the genuine-product certification content to facilitate extraction of the watermark signal from a captured image of the genuine-product certification label, the genuine-product certification labels being configured to be attached to the corresponding products; and
an integrated certification management server comprising at least one processor, a memory, and a communication interface,
wherein the integrated certification management server comprises:
a distribution management module configured to acquire distributor identification information and a distribution number of each of the products from each distributor and match the distribution number to the identification number assigned to the product and allocated to a distributor; and
a genuine-product certification module configured to receive a genuine-product certification request including user-related information and the identification number extracted from each of the genuine-product certification labels from a user terminal and perform genuine-product certification according to the received genuine-product certification request,
wherein, in response to determining that a product is a genuine product, the integrated certification management server transmits to the user terminal an authentication message causing display of an authentication indicator on the user terminal for user confirmation, the authentication message including product-specific information and distributor identification information associated with the certified product,
wherein the distribution management module and the genuine-product certification module are implemented by the at least one processor and memory of the integrated certification management server.
2. The integrated certification system of claim 1, wherein the distribution management module generates identification numbers for the products according to the number of registered products, allocates the generated identification numbers to one or more distributors according to the number of products to be distributed to each distributor, acquires distributor identification information and distribution numbers of the products when warehousing and shipping are performed by the corresponding distributor, extracts identification numbers corresponding to the acquired distributor identification information, and stores the extracted identification numbers matched one-to-one to the distribution numbers.
3. The integrated certification system of claim 1, wherein the integrated certification management server further comprises a distribution status manager configured to extract a distribution number corresponding to the identification number included in the genuine-product certification request, extract distributor identification information corresponding to the extracted distribution number, and store a result of performing the genuine-product certification matched to the distributor identification information.
4. The integrated certification system of claim 1, wherein the user-related information includes one or more of: user identification information of the user terminal, location information of the user terminal, and language information of the user terminal.
5. The integrated certification system of claim 4, wherein the integrated certification management server further comprises a region status manager configured to extract location information of the user terminal included in the genuine-product certification request and configured to manage a genuine-product certification status of each region on the basis of the extracted location information.
6. The integrated certification system of claim 5, wherein the region status manager generates a genuine-product region map for displaying, at preset time intervals, one or both of a location where a genuine product is detected in each region and the number of times the genuine product is detected; and a fake-product region map for displaying, at preset time intervals, one or both of a location where a fake product is detected in each region and the number of times the fake product is detected.
7. The integrated certification system of claim 5, wherein when the number of times a fake product is detected in a specific region during a preset period of time exceeds a preset number, the region status manager sets a corresponding region as a fake-product caution region and transmits a caution message.
8. The integrated certification system of claim 4, wherein when a specific identification number is detected in places having different location information at the same time or when a specific identification number is detected several times in a preset region at preset time intervals, the genuine-product certification module performs fake-product processing on a corresponding identification number.
9. The integrated certification system of claim 4, wherein the integrated certification management server further comprises a user status manager configured to extract the user identification information included in the genuine-product certification request and configured to manage a user-specific genuine-product certification status on the basis of the extracted user identification information.
10. The integrated certification system of claim 9, wherein the user status manager ascertains preference of a corresponding product or whether a corresponding product is repeatedly purchased depending on the number of genuine-product certification requests of a user for the same product group and ascertains a corresponding user's product purchase pattern and product purchase period on the basis of time information of the genuine-product certification request of the user.
11. The integrated certification system of claim 4, wherein the integrated certification management server further comprises a language status manager configured to extract the language information included in the genuine-product certification request and configured to manage a language-specific genuine-product certification status on the basis of the extracted language information.
12. The integrated certification system of claim 1, wherein the user-related information includes one or more of: user identification information of the user terminal, location information of the user terminal, and language information of the user terminal; and
the integrated certification system further comprises:
a distribution status manager configured to extract a distribution number corresponding to an identification number included in the genuine-product certification request, extract distributor identification information corresponding to the extracted distribution number, and store a result of performing the genuine-product certification while the result is matched to the distributor identification information;
a region status manager configured to extract the location information of the user terminal included in the genuine-product certification request and manage a region-specific genuine-product certification status on the basis of the extracted location information;
a user status manager configured to extract the user identification information included in the genuine-product certification request and manage a user-specific genuine-product certification status on the basis of the extracted user identification information; and
a language status manager configured to extract the language information included in the genuine-product certification request and manage a language-specific genuine-product certification status on the basis of the extracted language information.
13. The integrated certification system of claim 1, wherein the integrated certification system further comprises a user terminal; and
the user terminal comprises:
a content image acquirer configured to capture the genuine-product certification label attached to the product and acquire a genuine-product certification content image;
a watermark extractor configured to extract the genuine-product certification content image, the sync pattern or the edge pattern provided in the genuine-product certification content, correct the acquired genuine-product certification content image using a projection matrix for correcting the detected sync pattern or edge pattern to place the pattern at predetermined positions, and extract a watermark signal from the corrected genuine-product certification content image;
an identification number extractor configured to inversely index the extracted watermark signal, which is a spreading sequence, to recover an original spreading sequence and extract an identification number assigned to the product from the recovered spreading sequence;
a user-related information acquirer configured to acquire preset user-related information when a genuine-product certification event occurs in the user terminal; and
a communicator configured to transmit a genuine-product certification request including the extracted identification number and the acquired user-related information to the integrated certification management server.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to performing genuine product certification. This type of method of organizing human activity is a fundamental economic practice because it involves mitigating risk and a commercial interaction such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The claims also recite mental processes. For example, the distribution management module is configured to acquire distributor identification information and a distribution number of each of the products from each distributor (observation) and match the distribution number to an identification number assigned to a corresponding distributor (evaluation). The genuine-product certification module is configured to receive a genuine-product certification request including user-related information and an identification number extracted from each of the genuine-product certification labels from a user terminal (observation) and perform genuine-product certification according to the received genuine-product certification request (evaluation, judgment). The server transmits an authentication indicator message that is displayed on the user terminal (judgment, opinion). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, the claimed server, modules, and managers are software that could provide instructions to any general purpose computing device. The user terminal of claim 13 is a general purpose computing device that is programmed to implement the claimed abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
35 USC § 102/103
The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 because the particular combination of claim features, including the specific type of data that is acquired, matched, received, and used, was not found in the art.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Katayama et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0144968 A1. This reference teaches a distribution label that is attached to a purchased article before it is delivered.
Gaynor, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0091670 A1. This reference teaches a label that certifies the genuineness of beauty products.
Corry et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0051485 A1. This reference teaches product authentication by applying a genuine products code on a label.
Gaffney et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0169602 A1. This reference teaches a product that has a product identification code and a security label with a security label code. See Figure 3.
Surapaneni, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0342917 A1. This reference teaches product authentication.
Shulman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0032382 A1. This reference teaches product authentication using identification tags attached to products and a central server that validates scanned codes.
Dattawadkar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0045538 A1. This reference teaches techniques for determining authenticity of an item. Specifically, paragraph 0005 discloses displaying a message that indicates whether a product is authentic.
Rhoads, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0022444 A1. This reference teaches authentication using a digital watermark.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
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, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693
Prosecution Insights