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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 were previously pending. Claim 1 was amended and claim 5 was canceled in the reply filed January 21, 2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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 not persuasive. Applicant argues that "the system in Chen does not include a unique identifier embedded on a cosmetic product or packaging that includes a link to a web page the presents characteristics for the cosmetic product including 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." Remarks, 5. In Chen's system, web links connect the user to information about the product (¶¶ 0056, 65), and that information includes the content added by the manufacturer (i.e., serial number, ingredients, etc.) in association with the product's token stored on the blockchain (¶¶ 0020, 25). With respect to the comparisons (Remarks, 5-6), Chen also discloses that: "The product may authenticate the instance of the product based on device attributes of the user device 110, an image of the instance of the product captured by the user device 110, and/or data retrieved from the product ledger in association of the token." (¶ 0060, emphasis added).
The arguments with respect to Lipton (Remarks, 6-7) are not persuasive because the limitations argued are present in Chen. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant also argues that the Chen/Lipton are "fundamentally different" from the claimed invention and that the proposed combination "would require substantial re-architecture." Remarks, 7. However, aside from restating the claim language, no reasons are provided. "Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). The only modification proposed is encrypting the data in Chen, which would be well within the level of ordinary skill. The arguments regarding the dependent claims (Remarks, 8) only consist of a general allegation of patentability. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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).
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.
As per claim 2, Chen in view of Lipton 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 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 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 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., as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Rizzi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0135306 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250818) and 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 teaches claim 3 as above. While Chen teaches the products are cosmetic products (see above) it does not explicitly teach the product includes one or more sensors configured to detect current product quality information for the product, and wherein 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.
Rizzi teaches the product includes one or more sensors configured to detect current product quality information for the product, and wherein the current product quality information is transmitted (¶¶ 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.
Juntilla teaches 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 (¶ 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., 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ma, et al., The Design of Brand Cosmetics Anti-counterfeiting System Based on RFID Technology, 2015 International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers, Wuhan, China, 2015, pp. 184-189, doi: 10.1109/ICNISC.2015.36 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) relates to cosmetic authenticity verification.
Wazid, et al., Secure authentication scheme for medicine anti-counterfeiting system in IoT environment, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 4.5 (2017): 1634-1646 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to cosmetic authenticity verification.
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