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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method for validating product ownership rights.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“validating, by the token rights management service, the access token and the first value; (authenticating access token and first value)
querying, by the token rights management service in response to validating the access token, a trusted ledger service using a connector service of the token rights management service to determine whether the rightsholder identification information, the tag identifier, and the encrypted secure key are associated in an entry in a trusted ledger maintained by the trusted ledger service…; (transmitting/sending a query request)
receiving…a first indication, the first indication indicating that the rightsholder identification information, the tag identifier, and the encrypted secure key are associated in an entry in the trusted ledger; (receiving query result)
generating… a validation message, the validation message comprising a signed value generated based on the nonce value, a timestamp generated by the token rights management service, the rightsholder identification information, and the tag identifier; and (generating an authentication message)
transmitting the validation message to the marketplace service validating the physical product. (transmitting authentication message)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) authenticating product/tag information, 2) transmitting a query request and receiving query results, 3) generating and transmitting an authentication message.
The above steps describe the process of validating product ownership rights. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (commercial or legal interactions) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of a computing device having a processor and a memory (token rights management service) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “receiving a tag identifier associated with the physical product, a first value generated by a tag associated with the physical product, a nonce value, and an access token” and “retrieving rightsholder identification information and an encrypted secure key associated with the tag identifier” represents receiving data request and retrieving requested data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The steps of “receiving a tag identifier associated with the physical product, a first value generated by a tag associated with the physical product, a nonce value, and an access token” and “retrieving rightsholder identification information and an encrypted secure key associated with the tag identifier”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, amounts to “transmitting/obtaining information over a network” and “storing and retrieving information in memory” which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/254995 (Rowan) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0198873 (Falk et al. – hereinafter Falk), and further in view of “Towards A Distributed Ledger Based Verifiable Trusted Protocol for VANET” by Aftab et al. (hereinafter Aftab).
Referring to claim 1, Rowan discloses a method for managing a managed asset associated with a physical product performed by a token rights management service executing on a system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform the method, the method comprising: [See paragraph 0020]
receiving, by the token rights management service from a marketplace service, a tag identifier associated with the physical product, a first value generated by a tag associated with the physical product and a nonce value; [See paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0032, 0034]
retrieving, by the token rights management service, rightsholder identification information and an encrypted secure key associated with the tag identifier; [See paragraphs 0027, 0033, claims 3 & 6]
validating, by the token rights management service, the first value; [See paragraphs 0033]
querying, by the token rights management service, a trusted ledger service using a connector service of the token rights management service to determine whether the rightsholder identification information, the tag identifier, are associated in an entry in a trusted ledger maintained by the trusted ledger service, the trusted ledger service executing on a separate system than the system executing the token rights management service; [See paragraphs 0036, 0037, claim 6]
receiving, by the connector service from the trusted ledger service, a first indication, the first indication indicating that the rightsholder identification information, the tag identifier, are associated in an entry in the trusted ledger; [See claim 6]
generating, by the token rights management service in response to receiving the first indication, a validation message, the validation message comprising a signed value generated based on the nonce value, a timestamp generated by the token rights management service, the rightsholder identification information, and the tag identifier; and [See paragraphs 0027, 0033, claims 3 & 6]
transmitting the validation message to the marketplace service validating the physical product. [See paragraphs 0043, 0049, Fig. 3]
Rowan does not explicitly disclose the limitations:
receiving, by the token rights management service from a marketplace service, an access token;
validating, by the token rights management service, the access token;
the validation message comprising a signed value generated based on the nonce value, a timestamp generated by the token rights management service.
Falk teaches a method with the limitations:
receiving, by the token rights management service from a marketplace service, an access token; and [See paragraph 0065, Fig. 3]
validating, by the token rights management service, the access token. [See paragraph 0065, Fig. 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Rowan to have incorporated an authentication and authorization feature as in Falk with the motivation of protecting the integrity of product data in a database. [See Falk paragraphs 0014-0016; Rowan paragraph 0007]
Aftab teaches a method with the limitation: the validation message comprising a signed value generated based on the nonce value, a timestamp generated by the token rights management service. [Section V and VI (subsections B and D)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the teachings of the combination of Rowan and Falk to have incorporated an authentication feature as in Aftab with the motivation of protecting the integrity of messages in a blockchain network. [See Aftab Abstract; Rowan paragraph 0007]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tag identifier is associated with a secure tag included in the physical product. [See Rowan paragraph 0021]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the secure tag comprises a near field communication tag. [See Rowan paragraph 0021]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises decrypting the encrypted secure key to generate a secure key and wherein validating the first value comprises querying a tag service of the token rights management service with the tag identifier, the first value, the nonce value, and the secure key. [See Rowan paragraphs 0028, 0032-0034]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 5, wherein validating the first value further comprises receiving a validation response from the tag service. [See Rowan paragraphs 0028, 0032-0034]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the tag service comprises a service of the token rights management service and the validation response further comprises the timestamp. [See Rowan paragraphs 0028, 0032-0034]
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the rightsholder identification and the encrypted secure key are retrieved from a secure database. [See Rowan paragraphs 0040-0042, 0049]
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the secure database is managed on the same system as the token rights management service. [See Rowan paragraph 0045]
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the secure database is managed by a secure database service executing on a separate system than the system executing the token rights management service and the system executing the trusted ledger service. [See Rowan paragraph 0045]
Referring to claim 11, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the physical product comprises a shoe. [See Rowan paragraph 0048 – The invention is applicable to physical objects.]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trusted ledger comprises a trusted immutable distributed assertion ledger. [See Rowan paragraphs 0040, 0041]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trusted ledger comprises a blockchain ledger. [See Rowan paragraphs 0040, 0041]
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises retrieving, by the token rights management service, metadata associated with the secure tag identifier. [See Rowan paragraph 0049]
Referring to claim 15, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the metadata comprises metadata associated with the physical product. [See Rowan paragraph 0048]
Referring to claim 16, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the metadata associated with the physical product comprises contact information associated with the rightsholder identification information. [See Rowan paragraph 0048]
Referring to claim 17, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the validation message further comprises the metadata. [See Rowan paragraph 0049]
Referring to claim 18, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tag identifier is obtained by the marketplace service from a tag reader system. [See Rowan paragraphs 0030, 0031]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowan in view of Falk and Aftab as applied to claim 1, and further in view of KR 102 438 223 (Hwa et al. – hereinafter Hwa).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 1 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the first value comprises a message authentication code value.
Hwa teaches a method with the limitation: wherein the first value comprises a message authentication code value. [See paragraph 0011]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the teachings of the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab to have incorporated an authentication feature as in Hwa with the motivation of protecting the integrity of a transaction. [See Hwa paragraph 0011]
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowan in view of Falk and Aftab as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2022/0366061 (Spivack et al. – hereinafter Spivack).
Referring to claim 19, the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab discloses the method of claim 18 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the tag reader system obtains the tag identifier from a tag included in the physical product.
Spivack teaches a method with the limitation: wherein the tag reader system obtains the tag identifier from a tag included in the physical product. [See paragraphs 0099, 0467, 0503]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the teachings of the combination of Rowan, Falk and Aftab to have incorporated an RFID reader as in Spivack with the motivation of obtaining information associated with an RFID tag. [See Rowan paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0032, 0034; Spivack paragraph 0099, 0467, 0503]
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Rowan, Falk, Aftab and Spivack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tag comprises a virtual digital tag identified by a watermark included on the physical product. [See Spivack paragraphs 0099, 0467]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627