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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action.
Claims [1-3, 6-16, and 18-23] are currently pending and have been examined based on their merits.
Claims 1-3, 14-16, 20-21, and 23 are currently amended see REMARKS March 17, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 march 17, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 6-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 20-22 recite a method (i.e. a series of steps), and claims 14-16, 18-19 and 23 recite a system and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claims 1 and 14 recite: A method for automatic product authenticity verification, the method comprising: recognizing one or more observed identifying parameters of a candidate physical product, the candidate physical product associated with a product identifier; identifying a block referencing the product identifier, the block including one or more recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by a source party that produced the genuine physical product; and evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by automatically comparing the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product to the one or more recorded identifying parameters for the genuine physical product to obtain an evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product by performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and as second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value to a similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity result, and creating a record specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product.
Claim 20: A method for automatic product authenticity verification, the method comprising: receiving data, the data quantifying one or more observed identifying parameters of a candidate physical product, and the candidate physical product associated with a product identifier; identifying a block referencing the unique product identifier, the block including a set of recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) that manufactured the genuine physical product; evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by automatically comparing the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product to the one or more recorded identifying parameters for the genuine physical product to obtain an evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product by performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value to a similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity result, and creating a record specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product; and based on determining that the similarity value does not exceed the similarity threshold, rejecting the candidate physical product as an inauthentic counterfeit of the genuine physical product.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure recites commercial interactions. The claims recite a series of steps to determine the authenticity of a product by comparing an authentication marking from the product to a reference image. Merely reciting a series of steps to receive product information, and determine the markings compliance with by finding a matching record set and determining if the parameters of the product match the parameters in a reference is merely a generic series of instructions to perform to validate the authenticity of a product. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims alternatively recite a mental process. As the claims recite series of steps to validate identifying parameters of a product by receiving product identifier information, identifying a record, and comparing the product information to a reference record. The courts have identified steps of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results as reciting mental processes. Furthermore, merely performing observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, validating the status of a marking on a product by comparing its details to a previously recorded standard would be capable of being performed in the human mind or with simple tools such as pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: an authentication computing system and a digital blockchain, executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions, and creating a record in the digital blockchain.
Claim 14: an authentication computing system, logic subsystem; and a storage subsystem holding instructions executable by the logic subsystem, and a digital blockchain, wherein the blockchain includes a smart contract, executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions, creating a record in the digital blockchain.
Claim 20: an authentication computing system, data output by one or more sensors, and a digital blockchain, executing computer code of a smart contract wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions, creating a record in the digital blockchain.
The additional elements of generic computer elements to receive and transmit information such as an authentication computing system as well as perform the abstract idea of receiving, storing, and analyzing product information to determine the authenticity of a product is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. The additional elements merely recite using generic computer elements to perform the steps of receiving, assessing, and recording information. Such as generic computer elements of a user device and modules to receive information and compare the information to a record. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize the generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving product information, comparing the information to a standard, and determining an authenticity of the product. Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-3, 6-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-23 further narrow the abstract idea of determining if the parameters of a product match the records to determine if the product is genuine as recited in the independent claims 1, 14, and 20 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 8 and 18 recite a physical tag
Claim 9 recites encrypted in the block of the digital blockchain
Claim 12 recites two or more computing devices, including the authentication computing system and a blockchain computing system.
Claim 13 recites one or more sensors of the authenticating computing system.
However, the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or being applied to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14-16, 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski (US 2016/0239934) in view of Mathai (US 2020/0220899) further in view of Voloshynovskiy (US 2017/0109600).
Claims 1 and 14: Soborski discloses (Claim 1) A method for automatic product authenticity verification, the method comprising: (Claim 14) An authentication computing system, comprising: a logic subsystem; and a storage subsystem holding instructions executable by the logic subsystem to: at an authentication computing system, computer-recognizing one or more observed identifying parameters of a candidate physical product, the candidate physical product associated with a product identifier (Paragraph [0018-0019]; [0023-0024]; [0049]; Fig. 1, the present disclosure is generally directed to methods for determining whether a mark is genuine. According to various embodiments, a computing device uses unintentionally produced artifacts within a genuine mark to define an identifiable electronic signature and extracts certain features of the signature in order to enhance the ease and speed with which signatures can be searched and compared with signatures of candidate marks. A mark is a visible indicator that is intentionally on a physical object. A mark may be something that identifies a brand (e.g. a logo), something that bears information, such as a barcode, an expiration data, or tracking information such as a serial number, or a decoration. The term mobile communication device as used herein is a communication device that is capable of sending and receiving information over a network (e.g. smart phones). The user launches an application on a computing device which is depicted as a smartphone. The computing device under control of the application (and possibly in response to input form the user) captures an image of the candidate mark. The computing device decodes the explicit data in the candidate mark, and transmits the captured image);
and computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by: automatically comparing the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product to the one or more recorded identifying parameters for the genuine physical product to obtain an evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0061-0062]; Fig. 10, an example of how a computing device compares an HID generated for a candidate mark to an HID of a genuine mark. The computing device attempts to match index values that make up the respective HID blocks of the candidate mark and the genuine mark. The computing device counts each match towards a match score. For example, the block 1002 of the genuine mark and the block 1004 of the candidate mark have a match score of 21, while the block 1005 of the candidate mark and the block 1008 of the genuine mark have a match score of 4. A computing device compares an overall HID of a genuine mark with that of a candidate mark. The computing devices takes each individual HID block and HID value of a genuine signature and compares it to the corresponding block of an HID value of a candidate signature and assigns a match score. The computing device then combines each of the scores into an overall match score. If the overall match score meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, then the computing device deems the HIDs to be closely matched. For example the computing device may use a predetermined threshold value of 120. This threshold could be as low as zero),
Soborski discloses a system for validating the authenticity of a product based on comparing the object to a reference. However, Soborski does not specifically disclose the following claim limitations: computer-identifying a block of a digital blockchain referencing the product identifier, wherein the block includes one or more recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by a source party that produced the genuine physical product; by performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value to a similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity result; and computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions that include: and creating a record in the digital blockchain specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product.
In the same field of endeavor of determining the authenticity of a product Mathai teaches computer-identifying a block of a digital blockchain referencing the product identifier, wherein the block includes one or more recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by a source party that produced the genuine physical product; and computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions that include: and creating a record in the digital blockchain specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0005]; [0027]; [0046-0048]; [0101]; Figs. 1 and 4, a system configured to perform one or more of determine the scan properties and authentication rules, operate a scanning device to capture scan data for a physical object based on the scan properties and the authentication rules, and generate a data block based on the scan data and the scan properties. This data block may be provided to a decentralized database. A blockchain operates arbitrary, programmable logic, tailed to a decentralized storages scheme and referred to as “smart contracts” or “chain codes.” A processes may be used to authenticate an object being exchanged. For example, the system may operate according to one or more rules, which may be stored at or otherwise determined by the rules module, and which may be the same as or similar to the rules used in the initial acquisition of authentication information for an object. A number of scans may be taken of a physical object. Each scan may have its own set of properties. The system may compare the data block of scanned object to the data block generated during an initial collection of authentication information for an object to determine whether the object is indeed the same object. This may include a comparison of the actual data blocks and/or one or more comparisons of one or more subsets of data in a derivable form. If one or more of such comparisons fail, a notification of this failure may be generated and presented to the user. If a transaction fails the transaction ordered into a block will still be included in that block, but it will be marked as invalid).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of computer-identifying a block of a digital blockchain referencing the product identifier, wherein the block includes one or more recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by a source party that produced the genuine physical product; and computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions that include: and creating a record in the digital blockchain specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product as taught by Mathai (Mathai [0046]). With the motivation of helping to verify the authenticity of a product and storing proof of authenticity on a blockchain (Mathai [0003]).
In the same field of endeavor of validating a product is genuine Voloshynovskiy teaches by performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value to a similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity result (Paragraph [0016-0018]; [0054]; [0074]; [0080]; [0092]; Fig. 4, the present invention is to realize a method for verification of authenticity and/or recognition of digital and/or physical objects. The identification database is designed as an inverted file with an identification feature with a given index containing corresponding indices of objects possessing this feature, whilst the authentication database is designed as a lookup table storing an index of authentication features of an object with an attribute. Examples might include differences in color, patterns, or different placement of patterns. Protection of physical objects is achieved by automatic verification of the objects using imaging equipment. The key point extraction step extracts a set of pre-defined characteristic points in an image. The predefined points are defined as predefined set of features in a codebook and might include special shapes of texts, graphics or image patches. Alternatively, the key points are computed over the image with a predefined structure of a corresponding sampling grid. The key point extraction results into a set of key points that are characterized by a position of their indices according to the codebook. The features are extracted from the probe image thus resulting in feature vector and a decoder produces a list of possible candidates that match best. The authentication step starts with partitioning the image into blocks each block is processed individually by a transformer resulting int a corresponding feature vector. This feature vector is matched with the vector stored in the authentication database).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of by performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value to a similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity result as taught by Voloshynovskiy (Voloshynovskiy [0092]). With the motivation of helping to identify the authenticity of a product (Voloshynovskiy [0003]).
Claims 2 and 15: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1 and the authentication computing system as per claim 14. Soborski further discloses wherein computer-evaluating the authenticity of the candidate physical product includes, based on determining that the similarity value exceeds the a similarity threshold, validating the candidate physical product as the genuine physical product (Paragraph [0061-0062]; Figs. 10-11, an example of how a computing device compares an HID generated for a candidate mark to an HID of a genuine mark. The computing device attempts to match index values that make up the respective HID blocks of the candidate mark and the genuine mark. The computing device counts each match towards a match score. For example, the block 1002 of the genuine mark and the block 1004 of the candidate mark have a match score of 21, while the block 1005 of the candidate mark and the block 1008 of the genuine mark have a match score of 4. A computing device compares an overall HID of a genuine mark with that of a candidate mark. The computing devices takes each individual HID block and HID value of a genuine signature and compares it to the corresponding block of an HID value of a candidate signature and assigns a match score. The computing device then combines each of the scores into an overall match score. If the overall match score meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, then the computing device deems the HIDs to be closely matched. For example the computing device may use a predetermined threshold value of 120. This threshold could be as low as zero).
Claims 3 and 16: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1 and the authentication computing system as per claim 14. Soborski further discloses wherein computer-evaluating the authenticity of the candidate physical product includes, based on determining that the one or more observed identifying parameters do not match the similarity value does not exceed the similarity threshold, rejecting the candidate physical product as an inauthentic counterfeit of the genuine physical product (Paragraph [0021]; [0025]; [0043]; Fig. 2B, the terms closely matching and closely matched as used herein refer to the results of a determination made based on a comparison between values that yields a similarity between the values that reaches or exceeds a predetermined threshold. This disclosure is generally directed to methods and a computing device for determining whether a mark is genuine. According to an embodiment, a computing device receives a captured image of a candidate mark, measured a characteristic of the candidate mark using the captured image, resulting in a set of metrics. The computing device generates a signature for the candidate mark based on a set of metrics. The computing device derives a hash identifier (HID) using location identifiers. The computing device determines, based on a comparison of the HID of the candidate mark to a previously derived and stored HID of a genuine mark, whether the respective HID of the candidate mark closely matches the HID of the genuine mark. If the computing device finds one or more HIDs, that closely match the HID of the candidate mark, then the computing device will respond by retrieving, form the media storage device, the signatures that are associated with the closely matching HIDs. The computing device repeats this process for each signature to which a closely matching HID is associated. If the computing device is not able to closely match the signature of the candidate mark with any of the retrieved signatures, then the computing device indicates (by transmitting a message) that the candidate mark cannot be verified. If on the other hand, the computing device is able to closely match the signature of the candidate mark with a retrieved signature, then the computing device indicates (by transmitting a message) that the candidate mark is genuine).
Claim 6: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1. Soborski further discloses wherein the digital blockchain includes a transportation record specifying the product identifier, the transportation record provided by a supplier that transported the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0018-0019]; [0023-0024]; [0049]; Fig. 1, the present disclosure is generally directed to methods for determining whether a mark is genuine. According to various embodiments, a computing device uses unintentionally produced artifacts within a genuine mark to define an identifiable electronic signature and extracts certain features of the signature in order to enhance the ease and speed with which signatures can be searched and compared with signatures of candidate marks. A mark is a visible indicator that is intentionally on a physical object. A mark may be something that identifies a brand (e.g. a logo), something that bears information, such as a barcode, an expiration data, or tracking information such as a serial number, or a decoration).
Claim 7: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1. Soborski further discloses wherein the block further includes one or more product identifiers and sets of recorded identifying parameters corresponding to one or more other genuine physical products produced by the source party (Paragraph [0018-0019]; [0023-0024]; [0049]; Fig. 1, the present disclosure is generally directed to methods for determining whether a mark is genuine. According to various embodiments, a computing device uses unintentionally produced artifacts within a genuine mark to define an identifiable electronic signature and extracts certain features of the signature in order to enhance the ease and speed with which signatures can be searched and compared with signatures of candidate marks. A mark is a visible indicator that is intentionally on a physical object. A mark may be something that identifies a brand (e.g. a logo), something that bears information, such as a barcode, an expiration data, or tracking information such as a serial number, or a decoration).
Claim 12: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein the digital blockchain is cooperatively maintained by two or more computing devices, including at least the authentication computing system and a blockchain computing system associated with the source party.
In the same field of endeavor of determining the authenticity of a product Mathai teaches wherein the digital blockchain is cooperatively maintained by two or more computing devices, including at least the authentication computing system and a blockchain computing system associated with the source party (Paragraph [0005]; [0027]; [0046-0048]; [0101]; Figs. 1 and 4, a system configured to perform one or more of determine the scan properties and authentication rules, operate a scanning device to capture scan data for a physical object based on the scan properties and the authentication rules, and generate a data block based on the scan data and the scan properties. This data block may be provided to a decentralized database. A blockchain operates arbitrary, programmable logic, tailed to a decentralized storages scheme and referred to as “smart contracts” or “chain codes.” A processes may be used to authenticate an object being exchanged. For example, the system may operate according to one or more rules, which may be stored at or otherwise determined by the rules module, and which may be the same as or similar to the rules used in the initial acquisition of authentication information for an object. A number of scans may be taken of a physical object. Each scan may have its own set of properties. The system may compare the data block of scanned object to the data block generated during an initial collection of authentication information for an object to determine whether the object is indeed the same object. This may include a comparison of the actual data blocks and/or one or more comparisons of one or more subsets of data in a derivable form. If one or more of such comparisons fail, a notification of this failure may be generated and presented to the user. If a transaction fails the transaction ordered into a block will still be included in that block, but it will be marked as invalid).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein the digital blockchain is cooperatively maintained by two or more computing devices, including at least the authentication computing system and a blockchain computing system associated with the source party as taught by Mathai (Mathai [0046]). With the motivation of helping to verify the authenticity of a product and storing proof of authenticity on a blockchain (Mathai [0003]).
Claim 22: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1. However, Soborski does not disclose further comprising, based at least in part on the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product indicating that the candidate physical product is an inauthentic counterfeit of the genuine physical product, executing the computer code of the smart contract to automatically terminate a business contract between the source party and a recipient of the candidate physical product.
In the same field of endeavor of determining the authenticity of a product Mathai teaches further comprising, based at least in part on the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product indicating that the candidate physical product is an inauthentic counterfeit of the genuine physical product, executing the computer code of the smart contract to automatically terminate a business contract between the source party and a recipient of the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0005]; [0027]; [0046-0048]; [0101]; Figs. 1 and 4, a system configured to perform one or more of determine the scan properties and authentication rules, operate a scanning device to capture scan data for a physical object based on the scan properties and the authentication rules, and generate a data block based on the scan data and the scan properties. This data block may be provided to a decentralized database. A blockchain operates arbitrary, programmable logic, tailed to a decentralized storages scheme and referred to as “smart contracts” or “chain codes.” A processes may be used to authenticate an object being exchanged. For example, the system may operate according to one or more rules, which may be stored at or otherwise determined by the rules module, and which may be the same as or similar to the rules used in the initial acquisition of authentication information for an object. A number of scans may be taken of a physical object. Each scan may have its own set of properties. The system may compare the data block of scanned object to the data block generated during an initial collection of authentication information for an object to determine whether the object is indeed the same object. This may include a comparison of the actual data blocks and/or one or more comparisons of one or more subsets of data in a derivable form. If one or more of such comparisons fail, a notification of this failure may be generated and presented to the user. If a transaction fails the transaction ordered into a block will still be included in that block, but it will be marked as invalid).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of further comprising, based at least in part on the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product indicating that the candidate physical product is an inauthentic counterfeit of the genuine physical product, executing the computer code of the smart contract to automatically terminate a business contract between the source party and a recipient of the candidate physical product as taught by Mathai (Mathai [0046]). With the motivation of helping to verify the authenticity of a product and storing proof of authenticity on a blockchain (Mathai [0003]).
Claims 10 and 19: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1 and the authentication computing system as per claim 14. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product include one or more of a weight of the candidate physical product, measured dimensions of the candidate physical product, a color of the candidate physical product, a material composition of the candidate physical product, a paint composition of the candidate physical product, and a placement of one or more identifying marks on the candidate physical product.
In the same field of endeavor of validating a product is genuine Voloshynovskiy teaches wherein the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product include one or more of a weight of the candidate physical product, measured dimensions of the candidate physical product, a color of the candidate physical product, a material composition of the candidate physical product, a paint composition of the candidate physical product, and a placement of one or more identifying marks on the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0016-0018]; [0054]; [0074]; Fig. 1, the present invention is to realize a method for verification of authenticity and/or recognition of digital and/or physical objects. The identification database is designed as an inverted file with an identification feature with a given index containing corresponding indices of objects possessing this feature, whilst the authentication database is designed as a lookup table storing an index of authentication features of an object with an attribute. Examples might include differences in color, patterns, or different placement of patterns. Protection of physical objects is achieved by automatic verification of the objects using imaging equipment. The key point extraction step extracts a set of pre-defined characteristic points in an image. The predefined points are defined as predefined set of features in a codebook and might include special shapes of texts, graphics or image patches. Alternatively, the key points are computed over the image with a predefined structure of a corresponding sampling grid. The key point extraction results into a set of key points that are characterized by a position of their indices according to the codebook).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product include one or more of a weight of the candidate physical product, measured dimensions of the candidate physical product, a color of the candidate physical product, a material composition of the candidate physical product, a paint composition of the candidate physical product, and a placement of one or more identifying marks on the candidate physical product as taught by Voloshynovskiy (Voloshynovskiy [0054]). With the motivation of helping to identify the authenticity of a product (Voloshynovskiy [0003]).
Claim 11: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 10. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein computer-recognizing the one or more observed identifying parameters includes defining a virtual grid relative to a predefined reference point on the candidate physical product, and recognizing grid coordinates of the virtual grid occupied by the one or more identifying marks.
In the same field of endeavor of validating a product is genuine Voloshynovskiy teaches wherein computer-recognizing the one or more observed identifying parameters includes defining a virtual grid relative to a predefined reference point on the candidate physical product, and recognizing grid coordinates of the virtual grid occupied by the one or more identifying marks (Paragraph [0016-0018]; [0054]; [0074]; Fig. 1, the present invention is to realize a method for verification of authenticity and/or recognition of digital and/or physical objects. The identification database is designed as an inverted file with an identification feature with a given index containing corresponding indices of objects possessing this feature, whilst the authentication database is designed as a lookup table storing an index of authentication features of an object with an attribute. Examples might include differences in color, patterns, or different placement of patterns. Protection of physical objects is achieved by automatic verification of the objects using imaging equipment. The key point extraction step extracts a set of pre-defined characteristic points in an image. The predefined points are defined as predefined set of features in a codebook and might include special shapes of texts, graphics or image patches. Alternatively, the key points are computed over the image with a predefined structure of a corresponding sampling grid. The key point extraction results into a set of key points that are characterized by a position of their indices according to the codebook).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product include one or more of a weight of the candidate physical product, measured dimensions of the candidate physical product, a color of the candidate physical product, a material composition of the candidate physical product, a paint composition of the candidate physical product, and a placement of one or more identifying marks on the candidate physical product as taught by Voloshynovskiy (Voloshynovskiy [0054]). With the motivation of helping to identify the authenticity of a product (Voloshynovskiy [0003]).
Claims 21 and 23: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1 and the authentication computing system as per claim 14. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein performing the vector comparison includes calculating a cosine similarity between first multi-dimensional vector and the a second multi-dimensional vector.
In the same field of endeavor of validating a product is genuine Voloshynovskiy teaches wherein performing the vector comparison includes calculating a cosine similarity between first multi-dimensional vector and the a second multi-dimensional vector (Paragraph [0016-0018]; [0054]; [0074]; [0080]; [0092]; Fig. 4, the present invention is to realize a method for verification of authenticity and/or recognition of digital and/or physical objects. The identification database is designed as an inverted file with an identification feature with a given index containing corresponding indices of objects possessing this feature, whilst the authentication database is designed as a lookup table storing an index of authentication features of an object with an attribute. Examples might include differences in color, patterns, or different placement of patterns. Protection of physical objects is achieved by automatic verification of the objects using imaging equipment. The key point extraction step extracts a set of pre-defined characteristic points in an image. The predefined points are defined as predefined set of features in a codebook and might include special shapes of texts, graphics or image patches. Alternatively, the key points are computed over the image with a predefined structure of a corresponding sampling grid. The key point extraction results into a set of key points that are characterized by a position of their indices according to the codebook. The features are extracted from the probe image thus resulting in feature vector and a decoder produces a list of possible candidates that match best. The authentication step starts with partitioning the image into blocks each block is processed individually by a transformer resulting int a corresponding feature vector. This feature vector is matched with the vector stored in the authentication database).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein the one or more observed identifying parameters are expressed as a first multi-dimensional vector, and the one or more recorded identifying parameters are expressed as a second multi-dimensional vector, and wherein automatically comparing the one or more observed identifying parameters to the one or more recorded identifying parameters includes comparing the first multi-dimensional vector to the second multi-dimensional vector in a vector comparison operation as taught by Voloshynovskiy (Voloshynovskiy [0092]). With the motivation of helping to identify the authenticity of a product (Voloshynovskiy [0003]).
Claim(s) 8-9, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski (US 2016/0239934) in view of Mathai (US 2020/0220899) further in view of Voloshynovskiy (US 2017/0109600) even further in view of Grigorescu (US 2018/0253430).
Claims 8 and 18: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1 and the authentication computing system as per claim 14. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein one or both of the product identifier and a blockchain address of the block are specified by a physical tag attached to the candidate physical product.
In the same field of endeavor of validating the authenticity of a product Grigorescu teaches wherein one or both of the product identifier and a blockchain address of the block are specified by a physical tag attached to the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0004-0007]; [0027-0028] devises, systems, and methods are described for tagging, tracking, and cataloging articles of clothing. A method for identifying clothing includes identifying, by an electronic device, a tag of an article of clothing, retrieving information regarding the article of clothing, and displaying at least a portion of the retrieved information. The tag comprising information regarding an authenticity of the article of clothing. The tag may be any form of tag known that is configured to be read by an electronic device (e.g. by scanning the image of the tag or by detecting a transmission from the tag). In an example the tag is a smart label. The smart label may be identified by near field communication, radio frequency identification or over a personal area network (e.g. Bluetooth)).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein one or both of the product identifier and a blockchain address of the block are specified by a physical tag attached to the candidate physical product as taught by Grigorescu (Grigorescu [0027]). With the motivation of helping to validate the ownership and authenticity of a product (Grigorescu [0003]).
Claim 9: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters of the genuine physical product are encrypted in the block of the digital blockchain.
In the same field of endeavor of validating the authenticity of a product Grigorescu teaches wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters of the genuine physical product are encrypted in the block of the digital blockchain (Paragraph [0027-0028]; [0069]; [0071] the tag may be any form of tag known that is configured to be read by an electronic device. The tag includes a barcode configured to be scanned. In some examples the tag includes a QR code, a NexCode, and a visual cryptogram. In other examples, the tag is a smart label. The smart label may be identified by near field communication, RFID, or over a personal area network (e.g. Bluetooth). The label or tag may be configured to emit a signal that is detectable by the electronic device within a certain distance of the label. In certain examples, a tag for an article of clothing may be encoded with product information useful to track ownership of the article of clothing and verify its authenticity. Creation of the tag may include encoding the information using blockchain into the tag).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein one or both of the product identifier and a blockchain address of the block are specified by a physical tag attached to the candidate physical product as taught by Grigorescu (Grigorescu [0027]). With the motivation of helping to validate the ownership and authenticity of a product (Grigorescu [0003]).
Claim 13: Modified Soborski discloses the method as per claim 1. However, Soborski does not disclose wherein computer-recognizing the one or more observed identifying parameters includes quantifying the one or more observed identifying parameters based on sensor data output by one or more sensors of the authentication computing system.
In the same field of endeavor of validating the authenticity of a product Grigorescu teaches wherein computer-recognizing the one or more observed identifying parameters includes quantifying the one or more observed identifying parameters based on sensor data output by one or more sensors of the authentication computing system (Paragraph [0073-0074] in some examples, the information is identified by scanning the tag using a camera or sensor of the electronic device. In other examples, the information is identified automatically by the electronic device based on its proximity to a tag on the article of clothing).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of wherein one or both of the product identifier and a blockchain address of the block are specified by a physical tag attached to the candidate physical product as taught by Grigorescu (Grigorescu [0027]). With the motivation of helping to validate the ownership and authenticity of a product (Grigorescu [0003]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski (US 2016/0239934) in view of Grigorescu (US 2018/0253430) further in view of in view of Mathai (US 2020/0220899) even further in view of Voloshynovskiy (US 2017/0109600).
Claim 20: Soborski discloses A method for automatic product authenticity verification, the method comprising: computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by automatically comparing the one or more observed identifying parameters of the candidate physical product to the one or more recorded identifying parameters for the genuine physical product to obtain an evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0018-0019]; [0023-0024]; [0049]; Fig. 1, the present disclosure is generally directed to methods for determining whether a mark is genuine. According to various embodiments, a computing device uses unintentionally produced artifacts within a genuine mark to define an identifiable electronic signature and extracts certain features of the signature in order to enhance the ease and speed with which signatures can be searched and compared with signatures of candidate marks. A mark is a visible indicator that is intentionally on a physical object. A mark may be something that identifies a brand (e.g. a logo), something that bears information, such as a barcode, an expiration data, or tracking information such as a serial number, or a decoration. The term mobile communication device as used herein is a communication device that is capable of sending and receiving information over a network (e.g. smart phones). The user launches an application on a computing device which is depicted as a smartphone. The computing device under control of the application (and possibly in response to input form the user) captures an image of the candidate mark. The computing device decodes the explicit data in the candidate mark, and transmits the captured image);
based on determining that the similarity value does not exceed the similarity threshold, rejecting the candidate physical product as an inauthentic counterfeit of the genuine physical product (Paragraph [0061-0062]; Fig. 10, an example of how a computing device compares an HID generated for a candidate mark to an HID of a genuine mark. The computing device attempts to match index values that make up the respective HID blocks of the candidate mark and the genuine mark. The computing device counts each match towards a match score. For example, the block 1002 of the genuine mark and the block 1004 of the candidate mark have a match score of 21, while the block 1005 of the candidate mark and the block 1008 of the genuine mark have a match score of 4. A computing device compares an overall HID of a genuine mark with that of a candidate mark. The computing devices takes each individual HID block and HID value of a genuine signature and compares it to the corresponding block of an HID value of a candidate signature and assigns a match score. The computing device then combines each of the scores into an overall match score. If the overall match score meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, then the computing device deems the HIDs to be closely matched. For example the computing device may use a predetermined threshold value of 120. This threshold could be as low as zero).
Soborski discloses a system for validating the authenticity of a product based on comparing the object to a reference. However, Soborski does not specifically disclose the following claim limitations: at an authentication computing system, receiving sensor data output by one or more sensors, the sensor data quantifying one or more observed identifying parameters of a candidate physical product, and the candidate physical product associated with a product identifier; computer-identifying a block of a digital blockchain referencing the unique product identifier, wherein the block includes a set of recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) that manufactured the genuine physical product; computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions that include: performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value toa similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity results, creating a record in the digital blockchain specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product.
In the same field of endeavor of validating the authenticity of a product Grigorescu teaches at an authentication computing system, receiving sensor data output by one or more sensors, the sensor data quantifying one or more observed identifying parameters of a candidate physical product, and the candidate physical product associated with a product identifier (Paragraph [0073-0074] in some examples, the information is identified by scanning the tag using a camera or sensor of the electronic device. In other examples, the information is identified automatically by the electronic device based on its proximity to a tag on the article of clothing).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of at an authentication computing system, receiving sensor data output by one or more sensors, the sensor data quantifying one or more observed identifying parameters of a candidate physical product, and the candidate physical product associated with a product identifier; as taught by Grigorescu (Grigorescu [0027]). With the motivation of helping to validate the ownership and authenticity of a product (Grigorescu [0003]).
In the same field of endeavor of determining the authenticity of a product Mathai teaches computer-identifying a block of a digital blockchain referencing the unique product identifier, wherein the block includes a set of recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) that manufactured the genuine physical product (Paragraph [0005]; [0027]; [0046-0048]; [0101]; Figs. 1 and 4, a system configured to perform one or more of determine the scan properties and authentication rules, operate a scanning device to capture scan data for a physical object based on the scan properties and the authentication rules, and generate a data block based on the scan data and the scan properties. This data block may be provided to a decentralized database. A blockchain operates arbitrary, programmable logic, tailed to a decentralized storages scheme and referred to as “smart contracts” or “chain codes.” A processes may be used to authenticate an object being exchanged. For example, the system may operate according to one or more rules, which may be stored at or otherwise determined by the rules module, and which may be the same as or similar to the rules used in the initial acquisition of authentication information for an object. A number of scans may be taken of a physical object. Each scan may have its own set of properties. The system may compare the data block of scanned object to the data block generated during an initial collection of authentication information for an object to determine whether the object is indeed the same object. This may include a comparison of the actual data blocks and/or one or more comparisons of one or more subsets of data in a derivable form. If one or more of such comparisons fail, a notification of this failure may be generated and presented to the user. If a transaction fails the transaction ordered into a block will still be included in that block, but it will be marked as invalid);
computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions that include: creating a record in the digital blockchain specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product (Paragraph [0005]; [0027]; [0046-0048]; [0101]; Figs. 1 and 4, a system configured to perform one or more of determine the scan properties and authentication rules, operate a scanning device to capture scan data for a physical object based on the scan properties and the authentication rules, and generate a data block based on the scan data and the scan properties. This data block may be provided to a decentralized database. A blockchain operates arbitrary, programmable logic, tailed to a decentralized storages scheme and referred to as “smart contracts” or “chain codes.” A processes may be used to authenticate an object being exchanged. For example, the system may operate according to one or more rules, which may be stored at or otherwise determined by the rules module, and which may be the same as or similar to the rules used in the initial acquisition of authentication information for an object. A number of scans may be taken of a physical object. Each scan may have its own set of properties. The system may compare the data block of scanned object to the data block generated during an initial collection of authentication information for an object to determine whether the object is indeed the same object. This may include a comparison of the actual data blocks and/or one or more comparisons of one or more subsets of data in a derivable form. If one or more of such comparisons fail, a notification of this failure may be generated and presented to the user. If a transaction fails the transaction ordered into a block will still be included in that block, but it will be marked as invalid).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of computer-identifying a block of a digital blockchain referencing the unique product identifier, wherein the digital blockchain includes a smart contract, and the block includes a set of recorded identifying parameters for a genuine physical product, wherein the one or more recorded identifying parameters are previously provided by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) that manufactured the genuine physical product; computer-evaluating an authenticity of the candidate physical product by executing computer code of a smart contract, wherein the smart contract is defined by one or more data entries within one or more blocks of the digital blockchain, wherein the smart contract includes one or more functions that, when executed by the one or more computing devices of the authentication computing system, causes the one or more computing devices to perform corresponding actions that include: creating a record in the digital blockchain specifying the evaluated authenticity result for the candidate physical product as taught by Mathai (Mathai [0046]). With the motivation of helping to verify the authenticity of a product and storing proof of authenticity on a blockchain (Mathai [0003]).
In the same field of endeavor of validating a product is genuine Voloshynovskiy teaches performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value toa similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity results (Paragraph [0016-0018]; [0054]; [0074]; [0080]; [0092]; Fig. 4, the present invention is to realize a method for verification of authenticity and/or recognition of digital and/or physical objects. The identification database is designed as an inverted file with an identification feature with a given index containing corresponding indices of objects possessing this feature, whilst the authentication database is designed as a lookup table storing an index of authentication features of an object with an attribute. Examples might include differences in color, patterns, or different placement of patterns. Protection of physical objects is achieved by automatic verification of the objects using imaging equipment. The key point extraction step extracts a set of pre-defined characteristic points in an image. The predefined points are defined as predefined set of features in a codebook and might include special shapes of texts, graphics or image patches. Alternatively, the key points are computed over the image with a predefined structure of a corresponding sampling grid. The key point extraction results into a set of key points that are characterized by a position of their indices according to the codebook. The features are extracted from the probe image thus resulting in feature vector and a decoder produces a list of possible candidates that match best. The authentication step starts with partitioning the image into blocks each block is processed individually by a transformer resulting int a corresponding feature vector. This feature vector is matched with the vector stored in the authentication database).
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of authenticating a mark on a product as disclosed by Soborski (Soborski [0019]) with the system of performing a vector comparison between a first multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more observed identifying parameters and a second multi-dimensional vector representing the one or more recorded identifying parameters to obtain a similarity value, and comparing the similarity value toa similarity threshold to obtain the evaluated authenticity results as taught by Voloshynovskiy (Voloshynovskiy [0092]). With the motivation of helping to identify the authenticity of a product (Voloshynovskiy [0003]).
Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-16, and 18-23 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea as they recite a method that involves “computer recognizing” observed identifying parameters and executing computer code of a smart contract to compare those parameters to recorded data in a blockchain. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite a method for authenticating a product by observing physical identifying parameters of a product, comparing the observed parameters to recorded parameters, and creating a record of the authenticity of the product. Merely observing and comparing parameters of a product to a reference or source such as comparing the markings, coloring, logo, etc. to determine the product’s authenticity is a mental process as a person is capable of mentally, or with simple tools such as pen and paper, comparing the physical properties of a product to reference parameters to determine authenticity. Such as jeweler or seller of designer merchandise authenticating a product.
The applicant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application as they recite using a smart contract to implement logic stored in a blockchain which help improve data integrity and reduce failure. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims are found to recite an abstract idea of comparing observed identifying parameters between a candidate physical product and the recorded identifying parameters for the genuine physical product and creating a record specifying the evaluated authenticity results. Merely receiving, observing, and evaluating information such as comparing the observable physical parameters of a product to a reference are a mental process as a person is capable of mentally determining the authenticity of a product by comparing its characteristics to a standard or reference. Furthermore, the additional elements of a smart contract executed on a blockchain are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement in the technology of smart contracts nor blockchain but merely apply a generic step of executing computer code to have basic computer elements perform the abstract idea. As merely storing a series of instructions in a smart contract to execute an authentication process on a computer is not an improvement to a technology or technical field, but applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a practical application.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that claims 2-3, 6-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-23 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 14, and 20 and therefore are rejected under the same rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10-12, 14-16, 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski (US 2016/0239934) in view of Mathai (US 2020/0220899) further in view of Voloshynovskiy (US 2017/0109600) and Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski (US 2016/0239934) in view of Grigorescu (US 2018/0253430) further in view of in view of Mathai (US 2020/0220899) even further in view of Voloshynovskiy (US 2017/0109600) are not persuasive as amendments require further search and consideration and new art was applied.
Claims 1, 14, and 20: Applicant argues that the combination of prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations of “wherein the smart contract id defined by one or more data entries with one or more blocks of a digital blockchain.” However, upon further search and consideration the examiner finds that Mathai can be used in combination with the current prior art to disclose the newly amended claim limitations. Soborski discloses a system of determining if a mark or characteristic of a product is authentic by comparing a digital image of the mark to a reference stored in a media storage. While Mathia discloses a system of capturing a plurality of scans of an object and comparing those scans to a reference scan stored in a blockchain based on a smart contract and storing the results in a blockchain to authenticate the product during a transaction such as an exchange of ownership between users. Therefore, the examiner finds that Mathai can be used in combination with the current prior art to disclose the newly amended claim limitations.
Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 20 are newly rejected under U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-3, 6-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-23 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1, 14, and 20. Therefore, they are also rejected under the same rejection as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Werner (US 2021/0089514) Tracking and verification of physical assets.
Shannon (US 2025/0061175) Automatic object identification and serialization.
Benedetto (US 2024/0020354) Validating a real-world object’s digital twin.
Ghabel (US 2024/0297787) Blockchain-based authentication system.
Withrow (US 2024/0320678) Authentication triggered processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629