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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 were previously pending. Claim 1 was amended and new claim 21 was added in the reply filed June 9, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Moreover, the construction of the claims being argued does not appear to be supported by the Specification. "For example, Applicant's specification at par. 8 explains, 'when light exposure ... exceeds a first threshold, the condition of the cosmetic product may change from excellent to good.' By contrast, the system in Backhaus does not identify a change in the condition of the product based on the amount of light intensity. For example, even if the product in Backhaus is exposed to 'an excessively high light intensity,' that does not necessarily mean that the condition of the product has changed." Remarks, 6. Similar to Backhaus, Applicant's own light sensor does not measure the actual properties of the cosmetic product itself but rather the environmental conditions to which it is exposed, and then it arrives at a conclusion on the condition based on those measured external environmental conditions. When the light exposure exceeds a first threshold in Applicant's own invention, there is never an independent determination made on the quality of the product (i.e., it "does not necessarily mean that the condition of the product has changed"). See rejection made under § 112(a) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites "one or more light sensors configured to detect a change in the condition of the cosmetic product based on an amount of light exposure for the cosmetic product." Inasmuch as the construction of this limitation requires that the light sensor detects changes in the physical properties of the cosmetic product itself (rather than the conditions it is exposed to), this recites new matter. The disclosure provides that: "when light exposure, heat exposure, or moisture exposure exceeds a first threshold, the condition of the cosmetic product may change from excellent to good (Published Specification ¶ 0008, emphasis added); and "the cosmetic product 102 includes one or more environmental sensors to detect environmental factors that could negatively impact the cosmetic product 102, such as a light sensor, a heat sensor, a moisture sensor, etc." (Published Specification, ¶ 0054, emphasis added). This supports that the sensors detect the conditions that the cosmetic product is exposed to, but not that the light sensors detect the condition of the product itself. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0215382 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250818) in view of Lipton, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0153832 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251015), Rizzi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0135306 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250818), and Moeller, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0272495 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20260513).
As per claim 1, Chen teaches a method for verifying authenticity of a cosmetic product using a distributed ledger maintained by a plurality of participants, the method comprising:
generating, by one or more processors, a transaction including identification information for a cosmetic product indicating a manufacturer of the cosmetic product (¶ 0020; see also ¶¶ 0011, 100—cosmetic product; ¶ 0145—processor);
augmenting, by the one or more processors, the transaction with a cryptographic signature from the manufacturer to prove the identity of the manufacturer (¶¶ 0063, 95); and
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the transaction to at least one other participant in a distributed ledger network of participants maintaining the distributed ledger (¶ 0066),
wherein a unique identifier is embedded on the cosmetic product or on packaging for the cosmetic product that includes a link to a web page that (i) presents characteristics for the cosmetic product (¶¶ 0022, 25, 56, 65) and (ii) references the identification information for a cosmetic product in the distributed ledger (¶¶ 0017, 22, 25), and wherein the characteristics include two or more of: a name of the cosmetic product, a serial number for the cosmetic product, a manufacturing date of the cosmetic product, a manufacturing facility where the cosmetic product was manufactured, one or more ingredients in the cosmetic product, one or more locations or sources of the one or more ingredients, a batch number for the cosmetic product, or an expiration date for the cosmetic product (¶ 0020—content added by the manufacturer includes serial number and ingredients; see also ¶ 0025—data retrieved from the blockchain includes the content added by the manufacturer (i.e., serial number, ingredients, etc.); ¶ 0056—manufacturer content retrieved and presented via a web interface; ¶ 0065—manufacturer content retrieved from the blockchain via a web address);
wherein the characteristics are compared to the identification information for the cosmetic product in the distributed ledger to verify authenticity of the cosmetic product (¶¶ 0060, 74, 88).
Chen does not explicitly teach the characteristics are encrypted, wherein the characteristics are encrypted by the manufacturer using an encryption key; and wherein a decryption key is provided by the manufacturer to decrypt the encrypted characteristics; which is taught by Lipton (¶¶ 0061-64, 85-86). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Lipton—namely, to add further security to the verification process. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of product authentication. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
While Chen teaches the products are cosmetic products (see above), it does not explicitly teach generating current product quality information for the product indicative of a condition of the product, wherein the product includes one or more light sensors configured to detect a change in the condition of the product based on an amount of light exposure for the product.
Rizzi teaches the product includes one or more sensors configured to detect current product quality information for the product indicative of a condition of the product, wherein the product includes one or more sensors configured to detect a change in the condition of the product (¶¶ 0292, 311, 317). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Rizzi—namely, to monitor proper transport conditions of perishable products. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of product monitoring and verification. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Moeller teaches the sensor is specifically a light sensor configured to detect a change in the condition of the product based on an amount of light exposure for the cosmetic product (¶ 0103; see also ¶ 0003—cosmetics). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Moeller—namely, in order to address the photosensitivity of certain products. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of product monitoring and verification. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. This can also be viewed as a simple substitution of the light sensor in Moeller for the, e.g., product temperature sensor in Rizzi (¶¶ 0292-294). Both are shown in the art as types of environmental sensors used to monitor the conditions of shipped products, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this substitution would yield predictable results.
As per claim 2, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 1 as above. Chen further teaches generating the transaction includes minting, by the one or more processors, a non-fungible token (NFT) representing the cosmetic product and wherein the web page includes a link to the NFT in the distributed ledger (¶¶ 0039-40, 61-62, 65).
As per claim 3, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 2 as above. Chen further teaches generating, by one or more processors, a smart contract for minting, exchanging, or modifying NFTs representing cosmetic products (¶¶ 0110, 120-121); and deploying, by the one or more processors, the smart contract to an address stored on the distributed ledger maintained by the plurality of participants in a distributed ledger network (¶¶ 0110, 120-121).
As per claim 6, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 1 as above. Chen further teaches the unique identifier embedded on the cosmetic product or on the packaging for the cosmetic product includes at least one of: a barcode, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, or a near-field communication (NFC) tag (¶¶ 0017, 22).
As per claim 8, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 1 as above. Chen further teaches the unique identifier embedded on the cosmetic product or on the packaging for the cosmetic product is tamper resistant (¶ 0080).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al. in view of Lipton, et al., Rizzi, et al., and Moeller as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Juntilla, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0115684 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250818).
As per claim 4, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 3 as above. While Chen teaches the products are cosmetic products (see above), it does not explicitly teach the current product quality information is transmitted to the smart contract so that the NFT representing the product is updated with the current product quality information; which is taught by Juntilla (¶ 0025). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Juntilla—namely, so that the digital authenticator of the product can also be updated with an updated condition of an item in order to maintain current records of its condition on the blockchain. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of product monitoring and verification. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al. in view of Lipton, et al., Rizzi, et al., and Moeller as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cha, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0365543 (Reference D of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250818).
As per claim 7, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 1 as above. Chen further teaches the unique identifier embedded on the cosmetic product or on the packaging for the cosmetic product is a barcode printed on the cosmetic product (¶¶ 0017, 22). While Chen teaches the products are cosmetic products (see above) it does not explicitly teach the barcode is printed on the product using ink resistant to cosmetic ingredients; which is taught by Cha (¶ 0059; see also Fig. 2A). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Cha—namely, because by using, e.g., plastisol ink, the barcode will be resistant to water and fading and thus maintain its readability. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of product monitoring and verification. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al. in view of Lipton, et al., Rizzi, et al., and Moeller as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Backhaus, et al., CA Pat. Pub. No. 3,089,282 (Reference N of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20260513).
As per claim 21, Chen in view of Lipton, Rizzi, and Moeller teaches claim 1 as above. The references do not explicitly teach generating the transaction further includes generating a recommendation on how to prevent the condition of the cosmetic product from deteriorating. However, Backhaus teaches generating a recommendation on how to prevent the condition of the cosmetic product from deteriorating (pg. 7, lines 21—"measures to reduce the light intensity should be taken;" see also pg. 4, line 26—cosmetic products). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Backhaus—namely, to preserve product quality for the end consumer. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of product monitoring and verification. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results. Additionally, when applying the teaching of Backhaus to Chen, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that including this data as part of generating the transaction would fulfill Chen's goal of including a complete chain of custody and events regarding the specific cosmetic product into the blockchain record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nattar Ranganathan, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0245039 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) relates to a cosmetic authenticity verification system.
Agarwal, et al., Blockchain technology for secure supply chain management: A comprehensive review, IEEE Access, Vol. 10, 2022: 85493-85517 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to a cosmetic authenticity verification system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights