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 . 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. In that event, failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Given the presence of at least one relevant intervening reference, examiner suggests proactively filing a certified English translation to avoid unnecessary delays in prosecution of this application should a certified English translation ultimately be required.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed March 3, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed December 3, 2025. Claims 12-22 were previously pending. Claims 12, 13 and 16, have been amended and claim 21 has been cancelled. Claims 12-20 and 22 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to claim objections in the previous office action
Claim 13 was objected to because of the following informalities: following “a first block,” “the manufacturer” should be “a manufacturer,” and following “a fourth block,” “the tracking information of the waste product” should be “tracking information of a waste product.” Applicant apparently intended to correct all informalities but missed the third one. The objection has been revised to focus on the missed informality.
Pertaining to claim rejection under 35 USC § 112 in the previous office action
Claim 21 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 21 has been cancelled rendering moot this ground of rejection of that claim.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 12-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues, “independent claim 12 is directed to a specific system architecture”. Remarks p.8. The only limitation that recites anything related to architecture is “a plurality of devices on which a dedicated software program is installed”. This is not architecture. The continuation of this argument is directed to intended uses of the hypothetical unclaimed architecture recited in general abstractions based on the premise that the software is configured to do them. This is not statutory subject matter. Applicant’s argument directed to improvement of “the operation of QR-based traceability systems” is not persuasive because simply reciting a use of ineligible subject matter does not prima facie mean that any technology is improved. Applicant argues “the additional elements integrate any such concept into a practical application,” but does not identify any additional elements. Remarks p.9. The rejection is maintained.
Pertaining to claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed March 3, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 12 and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simske et al. (Paper No. 20251029; Patent No. US 9,141,900 B2) in view of SAKAHASHI et al. (Paper No. 20251029; CANADIAN PATENT APPLICATION CA 2851809 A1) have been fully considered and some are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been modified. With regard to applicant’s argument that Simske does not disclose “activating reading levels by enabling access to specific blocks according to the life stage of the product,” examiner does not agree. Simske discloses “activating reading levels by enabling access to specific blocks according to the life stage of the product,” because it discloses enabling read and write access to specific blocks according to life stage. See at least Simske c9:62-67, c10:24-34, 42-48. With regard to applicant’s argument that Tamai “does not teach structuring a QR Code into defined blocks,” one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See 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). Tamai discloses structuring an IC tag into defined blocks (areas reserved for particular types of information), and those blocks are even defined by lifecycle stages of the product. Simske similarly discloses a 2D code with areas/blocks reserving access based on lifecycle stages and in fact, although not relying on official notice in the rejection, examiner notes that it is well known for areas in a code to be reserved for particular information types. In this particular case, Tamai is relied upon for the defined product life stage information in defined blocks (because its description of life stage information is the same or equivalent to that presently claimed), while Simske is relied upon for reserving access to blocks in a 2D code based on life stage of the product. Upon further consideration therefore the ground of rejection is modified in view of Tamai et al. (Paper No. 20251029; Japanese Pub. No. JP 2001307055 A).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: following “a fourth block,” “tracking information of the waste product” should be “tracking information of a waste product.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The recited modules and blocks (e.g., “encrypting module,” “software block,” “access management module”) are interpreted as packets of information accessed and utilized by the “dedicated software program” installed on the “plurality of devices.” They are not therefore being interpreted under section 112(f).
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 12-20 and 22 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 12 recites inter alia
“a plurality of devices on which a dedicated software program is installed, said dedicated software program being configured to read and write data from and to the at least one QR Code, said at least one QR code being able to be updated by writing updated data onto the at least one QR code”.
The subject matter of the claim (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in a manner such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the invention as being that described in the specification or as being the subject matter applicant actually possessed at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the “QR code being able to be updated by writing updated data onto the at least one QR code”. The specification describes updating the database, not the QR code. Specification ¶¶0020, 0023.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose this limitation raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
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 12-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 12-20 and 22 are directed to a machine or apparatus. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“A personalized information reading system for traceability of at least one product and for avoiding counterfeiting of the product, comprising at least one QR Code applied to each product, wherein the personalized information reading system comprises: a plurality of blocks of information containing data related to at least one product, said data being written on said QR Code; … a dedicated software program … being configured to read and write data from and to the at least one QR Code, said at least one QR code being able to be updated by writing updated data onto the at least one QR code; an encrypting module configured to encrypt the information associated with the at least one QR code uniquely associated with a product; a software block, configured for the management of the at least one QR Code applied to at least one product and of the encrypting module, said software block comprising an access management module defining user access privileges associated to a corresponding user comprised in a plurality of users, said user access privileges enabling to read and/or read and write data of at least one block of information comprised in the plurality of block of information; and a database comprising the plurality of blocks of information and a list of the plurality of users registered or enabled to access to one block of information or part of it or to more blocks of information, said software block being in communication with said database, and with said dedicated software program; wherein the plurality of blocks of information comprises: a first block corresponding to a pre-purchase life stage of the product, a second block corresponding to an activation life stage of the product, a third block corresponding to an advanced life stage of the product, and a fourth block corresponding to an end-of-life stage of the product; wherein the system is configured to activate, on the basis of a life stage of the product, different reading levels of the QR Code by enabling access to one or more of said blocks of information according to the life stage of the product.” Claim 12.
A careful analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk), and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a plurality of devices on which a dedicated software program is installed. Please note that the software program itself would be ineligible under this statute as a program per se if not for its installation on the “plurality of devices.” These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the plurality of devices and the “software program” installed therein is broadly and generally recited as performing all steps identified only in terms of intended results. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. The claims are almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying a method, itself described only by way of the intended results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular actions or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have therefore not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements are recited at a high level of generality, merely implement abstract ideas using generic computers, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h). No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem.
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 13-22 do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further identify data and data processing used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one."). Merely identifying previously unspecified devices as potentially a generic terminal, scanner, or mobile device, in certain dependent claims, does not significantly alter the considerations explained above.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 12-20 and 22 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simske et al. (Paper No. 20251029; Patent No. US 9,141,900 B2) in view of SAKAHASHI et al. (Paper No. 20251029; CANADIAN PATENT APPLICATION CA 2851809 A1) and further in view of Tamai et al. (Paper No. 20251029; Japanese Pub. No. JP 2001307055 A).
Simske teaches an information system for traceability of at least one product and product counterfeiting, comprising at least one QR Code applied to each product, and Simske discloses pertaining to
Claim 12. A personalized information reading system for traceability of at least one product and for avoiding counterfeiting of the product, comprising at least one QR Code applied to each product, wherein the personalized information reading system comprises: ● a plurality of blocks of information containing data related to at least one product, said data being written on said QR Code (see at least Simske abstract, figs. 3, 5, c1:10-15 “Two dimensional barcodes may be used over a wider range of applications, including, for example, commercial tracking, transport ticketing, product marketing and product labeling,” c5:25-34 “black modules, the white or non-filled blocks … indicate, for example, static information, such as information relating to the product, location, or other pieces of information.” Please note: a two dimensional barcode or matrix code is a QR code.); ● a plurality of devices on which a dedicated software program is installed, said dedicated software program being configured to read and write data from and to the at least one QR Code, said at least one QR code being able to be updated by writing updated data onto the at least one QR code (see at least Simske abstract “encoding, in a simultaneous multiple security application, independently encrypted security data elements within a single matrix of blocks in a progressive barcode…. barcode being configured to be overprinted as it progresses through progressive states,” figs. 3, 5, c2:22-35 “progressive barcode 10 is read by a reader”. Please note: Because this is a limitation directed to a software program “configured to,” “software program being configured to read and write data from and to the at least one QR Code” is interpreted as presenting a program that is configured to perform all three possible functions in any given implementation, i.e., “read and write,” “read only,” and “write only.”); ● an encrypting module configured to encrypt the information associated with the at least one QR code uniquely associated with a product (see at least Simske abstract “encoding, in a simultaneous multiple security application, independently encrypted security data elements within a single matrix of blocks in a progressive barcode,” c1:5-15 “A barcode is an optical machine-readable representation of data, which encodes the data in a typically visual format, often about the object to which it attaches. Often the data is encrypted. A matrix code, also termed a 2D barcode, is a two-dimensional way to represent information. … Two dimensional barcodes may be used over a wider range of applications, including, for example, commercial tracking, transport ticketing, product marketing and product labeling,” c5:33-37 “Data element 50 may be encrypted progressively, and may be changed from a first stage to a next stage,” c6:10-15 “As a product passes through a workflow, data regarding the product may remain constant, and encoded in a first data channel on the barcode”. Please note: as the data is progressively encrypted as a product passes through a workflow, it can only be referring to a code uniquely associated with a product.); ● a software block, configured for the management of the at least one QR Code applied to at least one product and of the encrypting module, said software block comprising an access management module defining user access privileges associated to a corresponding user comprised in a plurality of users, said user access privileges enabling to read and/or read and write data of at least one block of information comprised in the plurality of block of information (see at least Simske fig.3 (user access rights), c4:36-57 “within the progressive barcode 10, a user may be able to add a second secure channel to a readable barcode, the second secure channel typically encoding a data element…. a single key shared among a set of users of progressive barcode 10 could be used by any one of the users with a verification or read-only privilege. Further, a full Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) based security approach may be used for read/write access to the progressive barcode,” c8:10-18 “The set of black modules 25 in subsequent states B through D may be encrypted such that only a user with a particular security clearance can decrypt the modules to determine their unencrypted initial binary data element,” c8:40-56 “levels of access may include no access "read access", or "modify access". A single unit of the document may be associated with different sets of access keys. For example, such keys may include a verification key, an encryption key, a decryption key, and a signature key. Access keys for the unit are distributed to each workflow participant based on that participant's level of access. For example, … A participant with "read access" may be provided with both the verification key and the decryption key, to enable access to the contents of the document. A participant with "modify access" may be provided with all of the aforementioned keys, to enable re-encryption and signing of the modified document. This differential access may be accomplished via the progressive barcode”. Please note: see previous comment regarding a software program “configured to” perform all functions.);
● wherein the system is configured to activate, on the basis of a life stage of the product, different reading levels of the QR Code by enabling access to one or more of said blocks of information according to the life stage of the product (see at least Simske c9:62-67 “progressive barcode 10 may be configured to provide different levels of user rights for different users in a workflow, as depicted by blocks 120 and 130, wherein block 120 represents a group of users with a particular level of users rights,” c10:24-34, 42-48 “The new progressive barcode, like the previous barcode in the prior stage, depicted by block 115, may provide for distinct or overlapping user rights for two or more distinct or related groups of users along a workflow…. progressive barcode 10 may be configured to provide different levels of user rights for different users in a second stage of the workflow, as depicted by blocks 150 and 160, wherein block 150 represents a group of users with a particular level of users rights, and wherein block 160 represents a different, and in some examples, overlapping, group of users with a particular level of user rights”).
Simske teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) information encoded in a QR code, b) reading and writing data to the QR code, c) encrypting information associated with the QR code, and d) defining and managing user access read/write privileges, but does not explicitly disclose a database comprising the plurality of blocks of information and a list of the plurality of users registered or enabled to access to one block of information or part of it or to more blocks of information, said software block being in communication with said database, and with said dedicated software program.
SAKAHASHI also teaches a) information encoded in a QR code, b) reading and writing data to the QR code, c) encrypting information associated with the QR code, and d) defining and managing user access read/write privileges, and further discloses
● a database comprising the plurality of blocks of information and a list of the plurality of users registered or enabled to access to one block of information or part of it or to more blocks of information, said software block being in communication with said database, and with said dedicated software program (see at least SAKAHASHI p.36:15-25 “plurality of Codes created and/or Images uploaded can be used to create a Registry or Directory (832) …. The Registry or Directory can be searched (834) or browsed (831) …. The search of the 2D Codes can be limited to registered Code-creators (known as 'Registered Members’) who opt-in to be listed in said Directory (836) to all Registered Members if terms of service for the Device System specifies such (837), or have no limits,” p.43:39-35 “The referenced searchable Code Directory and/or Registry of Codes … can provide, in the aggregate, for a database of the plurality of Codes and/or Code Pages (834). Code-creators can opt-in to be a participant in such Directory and Registry services for Codes and Code Pages…. The Directory and/or Registry may be searchable and available only to registered Code-creators…. This 'Directory and/or Registry of the output of the Device System's Codes may be searchable by data provided during and inherent in the Code creation and/or account sign up processes or Code Page configuration and publishing processes for such including but not limited to Name or Description or Nickname of the Code or Code-creator as provided by the Code-creator”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Simske to include a database comprising the plurality of blocks of information and a list of the plurality of users registered or enabled to access to one block of information or part of it or to more blocks of information, said software block being in communication with said database, and with said dedicated software program, as taught by SAKAHASHI since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from SAKAHASHI in the method of Simske. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Simske in view of Sakahashi teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) information encoded in a QR code, b) reading and writing data to the QR code, c) tracking the product lifecycle status, and d) encoding product lifecycle status in the QR code, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of blocks of information comprises: a first block corresponding to a pre-purchase life stage of the product, a second block corresponding to an activation life stage of the product, a third block corresponding to an advanced life stage of the product, and a fourth block corresponding to an end-of-life stage of the product.
Tamai also teaches a) information encoded in a tag or barcode, b) reading and writing data to the tag or barcode, c) tracking the product lifecycle status, and d) encoding product lifecycle status in the tag or barcode, and Tamai further discloses
● wherein the plurality of blocks of information comprises: a first block corresponding to a pre-purchase life stage of the product, a second block corresponding to an activation life stage of the product, a third block corresponding to an advanced life stage of the product, and a fourth block corresponding to an end-of-life stage of the product (see at least Tamai abstract “stores … information for each of a plurality of stages in a life cycle from production to disposal,” p.1¶1 “A storage means having the same number of stage storage areas as the number of stages constituting the life cycle; an identifier storage means storing stage identifiers for respectively identifying the plurality of stage storage areas,” p.3¶1 “each stage such as manufacturing, maintenance, collection, and second-hand sales.” Please note: although the prior art discloses these elements or their equivalents applicant should note that the description of each life stage as claimed is nonfunctional descriptive information because it has no functional role in the system. Every aspect operates the same regardless of how the life stages are described. Descriptive material that has no functional role in the method will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). MPEP 2111.05. The rationale behind the printed matter cases has been extended to method claims in which an instructional limitation is added to a method known in the art. Similar to the inquiry for products with printed matter thereon, in such method cases the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12707, 2018 WL 2224150 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018); In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010); MPEP 2111.05.).
Simske in view of Sakahashi teaches, pertaining to
Claim 13. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, wherein said plurality of blocks of information comprises: ● a first block of information configured to categorize a product as not yet purchased by means of the reading the information regarding a manufacturer of the product and the product comprised in the QR Code read by first devices comprised in the plurality of devices, or by the dedicated software installed on a mobile device (see at least Simske c6:1-10 “a manufacturing workflow may include … auditing workflows, and
statistical workflows, such as inventory, …. Thus, a workflow may be defined as a set of tasks associated with generating, implementing, producing, or distributing a product”. Please note: workflow information regarding inventory encoded in a QR code for tracking an item from manufacture through distribution categorizes the item as not yet purchased because it is in inventory.); ● a second block of information consisting in reading the 2D codes comprised in the QR Code read by scanning with dedicated second devices comprised in the plurality of devices (see at least Simske abstract “encoding information of a second data element within the matrix using color modules,” c2:35-40 “number and configuration of color modules on the matrix may represent at least a second security-related channel encoding a data element,” c2:60-67 “when reading progressive barcode 10, matrix may be initially scanned or captured with an imager such as a camera or other imagers known in the art,” c4:35-50 “a user may be able to add a second secure channel to a readable barcode, the second secure channel typically encoding a data element”); ● a third block of information comprising the additional information and functions contained in QR Code read through third devices comprised in the plurality of devices (see at least Simske c3:55-60 “progressive barcode 10 is not physically printed, and may be imaged on a computer monitor, or other devices known in the art,” c5:45-55 “The progression of the color modules in progressive states, e.g., A through D may, in some examples, be used to provide additional information”. Please note: this recitation does not identify any particular information other than that it is additional information contained in the QR code and read by a third device. The prior art describes a plurality of devices performing the functions as recited above, and “additional information and functions” contained in the QR code, that is, additional devices reading functions and information in addition to those recited previously in the claim. It therefore discloses this recitation.).
Simske in view of Sakahashi teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) information encoded in a QR code, b) reading and writing data to the QR code, c) tracking the product lifecycle status, and d) encoding product lifecycle status in the QR code, but does not explicitly disclose a fourth block of information comprising the tracking information of the waste product by means of the QR Code read by fourth devices comprised in the plurality of devices.
Tamai also teaches a) information encoded in a tag or barcode, b) reading and writing data to the tag or barcode, c) tracking the product lifecycle status, and d) encoding product lifecycle status in the tag or barcode, and Simske in view of Sakahashi and further in view of Tamai further discloses
● a fourth block of information comprising tracking information of the waste product by means of the QR Code read by fourth devices comprised in the plurality of devices, such as terminals or scanners, or by the dedicated software installed on a mobile device (see at least Simske c3:55-60 “progressive barcode 10 is not physically printed, and may be imaged on a computer monitor, or other devices known in the art,” in view of Sakahashi p.10:25-30 “cameras and scanners such as those incorporated in mobile phones and other devices,” and further in view of Tamai p.15¶¶0160-0161 “A wireless IC tag is attached to the body of an automobile, and the operation status of the automobile, … are periodically recorded in the service stage area. … when the car is scrapped, the information may be used to determine the reuse of the parts and modules of the car.” Please note: although Tamai refers to an IC tag here, the functions described are similar with only the encoded information varying. It also describes barcodes as used together or interchangeably with the tag.).
Simske in view of Sakahashi and further in view of Tamai discloses, pertaining to
Claim 14. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, wherein information sent by the software block to the QR Code is encrypted by an algorithm and can be decoded at the destination only by means of a key, said key being stored in at least a device comprised in the plurality of devices or transmitted to the QR Code by the software block (see at least Simske abstract “encoding, in a simultaneous multiple security application, independently encrypted security data elements within a single matrix of blocks in a progressive barcode,” c2:13-21 “encryption may he decrypted by a public security protocol, or public encryption standard e.g. CIPE, SSL, Kerberos (X.509), and other protocols known in the art,” c2:50-60 “In some examples the data elements are security data elements related to independent, or in some examples, interdependent, security keys for access to secure documents,” c3:8-16 “progressive barcode 10 may be applied to instances of simultaneous multiple security applications, e.g., when one or a plurality of users may obtain separate and/or independent security keys for an application from the same progressive barcode 10. The separate and/or independent security keys typically represented as data element 50 encoded by the layout of color modules 35 and data element 40 encoded by the layout of the black modules”).Claim 15. The personalized information reading system according to claim 14, wherein said key is unique for each category of users (see at least Simske c3:8-16 “one or a plurality of users may obtain separate and/or independent security keys for an application from the same progressive barcode 10,” c4:50-58 “a single key shared among a set of users…. in other examples, the two module sets may be related to each key independently, affording many different security access methods,” c6:38-44 “example, a public key infrastructure (PKI) for one key and an identity-based encryption (IBE) mechanism for the other”).Claim 16. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, further configured to activate, based on the life stage of the product, multiple information
blocks of the QR Code through at least one device comprised in the plurality of devices differentiated by levels of reading associated to user privileges (see at least Simske fig.3 (user access rights), c8:10-18 “The set of black modules 25 in subsequent states B through D may be encrypted such that only a user with a particular security clearance can decrypt the modules to determine their unencrypted initial binary data element,” c8:40-56 “levels of access may include no access "read access", or "modify access". A single unit of the document may be associated with different sets of access keys. For example, such keys may include a verification key, an encryption key, a decryption key, and a signature key. Access keys for the unit are distributed to each workflow participant based on that participant's level of access. For example, … A participant with "read access" may be provided with both the verification key and the decryption key, to enable access to the contents of the document. A participant with "modify access" may be provided with all of the aforementioned keys, to enable re-encryption and signing of the modified document. This differential access may be accomplished via the progressive barcode”).Claim 17. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, wherein information relating to each product is stored with a unique registry database (see at least Simske abstract, figs. 3, 5, c1:10-15 “Two dimensional barcodes may be used over a wider range of applications, including, for example, commercial tracking, transport ticketing, product marketing and product labeling,” c5:25-34 “black modules, the white or non-filled blocks … indicate, for example, static information, such as information relating to the product, location, or other pieces of information,” in view of Sakahashi abstract “a searchable database, directory and or registry of the 20 Codes with embedded Images,” p.44:10-22 “Brands and Individuals … 'opt-in' (836) in order to be 'included' in said 'Directory' and/or Registry”).Claim 18. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, wherein said dedicated software program, has a plurality of sections to which each user, registered or enabled to access, can access according to specific privileges, for reading and/or reading/writing information contained in one or more blocks of information, also updating said database (see at least Simske figs.3(user access rights), 5, c4:36-57 “within the progressive barcode 10, a user may be able to add a second secure channel to a readable barcode, the second secure channel typically encoding a data element…. a single key shared among a set of users of progressive barcode 10 could be used by any one of the users with a verification or read-only privilege. Further, a full Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) based security approach may be used for read/write access to the progressive barcode,” c8:10-18 “The set of black modules 25 in subsequent states B through D may be encrypted such that only a user with a particular security clearance can decrypt the modules to determine their unencrypted initial binary data element,” c8:40-56 “levels of access may include no access "read access", or "modify access". A single unit of the document may be associated with different sets of access keys. For example, such keys may include a verification key, an encryption key, a decryption key, and a signature key. Access keys for the unit are distributed to each workflow participant based on that participant's level of access. For example, … A participant with "read access" may be provided with both the verification key and the decryption key, to enable access to the contents of the document. A participant with "modify access" may be provided with all of the aforementioned keys, to enable re-encryption and signing of the modified document. This differential access may be accomplished via the progressive barcode,” in view of Sakahashi fig.18, p.35:15-20 “plurality of Codes created and/or Images uploaded can be used to create a Registry or Directory,” p.35:35-p.36:5 “Pages can be updated by Code-creators in order to provide accurate information in real-time to searchers utilizing the Device System's Directory and Registry”).Claim 19. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, wherein the data comprised in the plurality of block of information, are data related to at least one product, and/or to a product and its related products, said data comprising production, authenticity data, technical characteristics, composition, expiration, origin and useful life stage (see at least Simske c5:55-c6:37 “a workflow is a defined set of stages, usually with tasks at each stage, through which a product may pass during its lifecycle. In an example, the workflow is a process during which documents, information, tasks, or products are passed …. Workflows may include any number of actions for processing the product. For example, … quality assurance, authentication, forensics, and the like. A supply chain workflow may include actions such as tracking, tracing, inspection, shipping, receiving, recall, among others. Workflows may also include other workflows. For example, a manufacturing workflow may include environmental workflows, sensor data monitoring workflows, compliance workflows, auditing workflows, and statistical workflows, such as inventory, average time in a stage, and the like. Thus, a workflow may be defined as a set of tasks associated with generating, implementing, producing, or distributing a product. In addition, a workflow may be conditional. In other words, a workflow may progress to different possible stages depending on the desired progression for each individual case…. data regarding stages in the workflow, …. data may include information that may be useful for tracing, tracking, state indication, data embedding, authentication, identification, or any other operations that may be used to provide information as a product progresses through the stages of a workflow…. workflow may initially involve three stages, for example, a manufacturer, a distributor, and a retailer”).
Claim 20. The personalized information reading system according to claim 12, wherein said software block is configured to match in real time data comprised in the plurality of blocks of information related to at least one QR Code and data comprised in the database, and to verify in real time a product's anomalies by mean of said match (see at least Sakahashi p.37:21-30 “System can have mandatory Verification and/or Authentication (825) or optional (826) Verification and/or Authentication signifiers that can be seen and/or heard by End-users. The System can optionally use a third party source and/or sources for Verification (827) and Authentication services” in view of Tamai ¶0006 “receiving access information from the access device when it is determined that the identifiers match,” pp.12-13¶0129 “Next, 09 compares the received identification code with the identification code read from the identification code storage unit 208, and if they do not match (step S174), further waits for reception of an access command. If they match (step S17) 4) The control unit 209 determines whether or not the physical address included in the access information indicates the inside of the stage area indicated by the number”).
Claim 22. The personalized information reading system according to claim 20, wherein said software block is configured to send a warning message to at least one user, and to save that warning message in the database, if the verify detects anomalies (see at least Tamai ¶0002 “identification information such as … error information, and maintenance information are used at the time of product manufacture, use, and maintenance …. inputs information for each product and component, stores the input information, reads out the stored information, and determines and evaluates each stage,” p.7¶7, on page, “Based on the received reason code, it recognizes that it is an operation error such as an error of the area key K1, and gives up access to the wireless IC tag identified by the identification code”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Simske in view of Sakahashi to include a fourth block of information comprising the tracking information of the waste product by means of the QR Code read by fourth devices comprised in the plurality of devices, as taught by Tamai since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Tamai in the method of Simske in view of Sakahashi. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● Simons, Patent No.: US 11,734,640 B2: teaches encoded thermosensitive labels created with "irreversible thermosensitive inks" that allow real time validation and traceability of the product from factory to end users through an online platform compatible with mobile devices. Includes encryption and granting access to the information to a user and different portions of the barcode accessible at different times. Also teaches detecting information regarding the discarding of counterfeit items.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights