DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office Action is in reply to the application filed on 26 April 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 20 June 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Under Step 1 the claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are directed to a method and claims 9-16 are directed to a system. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). See MPEP §2106.04.
Claims 1 and 9 recite a mental process as they include the limitations, identifying an address on a blockchain for a smart contract for authenticating the product… decrypting the encrypted first chain identifier using the first decryption key fragment and the second decryption key fragment; and determining an authenticity of the product based on a comparison of a batch creation time included in the decrypted first chain identifier and the batch creation time included in the genesis record based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See MPEP §2106.04(a) Part III, C.
Claim 17 recites, a mental process as it includes the limitations, decrypting a first encrypted portion of the address using a first decryption key…to obtain a first decrypted information; decrypting, a second encryption portion of the address using a second decryption key…to obtain a second decrypted information; comparing at least a portion of the first decrypted information and the second decrypted information; and determining an authenticity of the product based on the comparison based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See MPEP §2106.04(a) Part III, C.
Dependent claims 2 and 10 recite, wherein the first chain identifier comprises a serial number of the product.
Dependent claims 3 and 11 recite, wherein the smart contract comprises a bit array associated with the number of products in the batch production, each bit of the bit array identifying the serial number for the product in the batch production and wherein the method further comprises: determining if the serial number of the product of the decrypted first chain identifier is present in the bit array; and in response to determining that the serial number of the product of the first chain identifier is not present in the bit array, determining that the product is inauthentic.
Dependent claims 4 and 12 recite, wherein the method further comprises determining an address for the genesis record from a token associated with a consumer.
Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite, wherein the token comprises an offset value
Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite wherein the smart contract comprises an array and wherein obtaining the second decryption key fragment comprises locating the second decryption key fragment in the array.
Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite, obtaining the second key fragment comprises determining a combined sequence number based on the offset value and the product key and determining a location in the array of the second key fragment based on the combined sequence number.
Dependent claims 8 and 16 recite, determining a serial number for the product based on the combined sequence number; and comparing the determined serial number and a serial number comprised in the decrypted first chain identifier to determine the authenticity of the product.
Dependent claim 18 recites, wherein the identification information for the product comprises one or more of a product identifier corresponding to the predetermined number of products in the batch production, a batch identifier corresponding to the batch production in the manufacturing process and a serial number corresponding to the tag affixed to the product.
Dependent claim 19 recites, wherein the second decrypted information comprises a chain identifier, wherein the chain identifier comprises the tag identifier identifying the corresponding tag and a serial number for the corresponding tag.
Dependent claim 20 recites, wherein comparing at least a portion of the first decrypted information and the second decrypted information comprises comparing the tag identifier of the first decrypted information and the tag identifier of the second decrypted information.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 further recite a mental process as they include steps based on human observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, either mentally or with the aid of pen/paper.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the additional elements, a computing device, a blockchain, a processor, and an authentication server. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and perform generic computing functions such as retrieving, identifying, transmitting, decrypting, storing and determining. In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by generic computing components recited above at a high-level of generality with no technical improvement to the functioning of the computing device, blockchain, processor, or authentication server since the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computing components.
The claims recite the additional limitation upon scanning the tag affixed to the product, retrieving identification information for the product from an address associated with the tag, the identification information comprising an encrypted first chain identifier; retrieving, from a genesis record associated with the batch production, stored on the blockchain, a batch creation time for the product; transmitting to the smart contract, a first decryption key fragment, a product key and an offset value to decrypt the smart contract to obtain a second decryption key fragment for the encrypted first chain identifier. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims merely reiterate the same abstract ideas using the same additional elements as recited above for identifying, obtaining, determining and comparing without imposing any meaningful limits or any further practical application.
Dependent claims 4 and 12 recite the limitation, wherein the genesis record is stored on the blockchain. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data storage and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and even in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application since they do not impose any non-generic meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the retrieving, transmitting and storage steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Ultramercial, Symantec, OIP Techs. And Versata Dev. Group court decisions indicate that mere data collection, transmission and storage are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claim do not add anything further than when they are considered separately. Thus, under Step 2B, the claims are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art has been found to disclose the distinct features in the independent claims:
Claim 1: transmitting to the smart contract, a first decryption key fragment, a product key and an offset value to decrypt the smart contract to obtain a second decryption key fragment for the encrypted first chain identifier; decrypting the encrypted first chain identifier using the first decryption key fragment and the second decryption key fragment
Claim 9: transmit to the smart contract, a first decryption key fragment and a sequence number for the product to decrypt the smart contract to obtain a second decryption key fragment for the encrypted first chain identifier; - decrypt the encrypted first chain identifier using the first decryption key fragment and the second decryption key fragment
Claim 17: decrypting a first encrypted portion of the address using a first decryption key stored at the authentication server to obtain a first decrypted information; decrypting, a second encryption portion of the address using a second decryption key stored at the authentication server to obtain a second decrypted information; comparing at least a portion of the first decrypted information and the second decrypted information
The closest prior art:
Rueda Galan et al (US 2020/0357004 A1) discloses [0058] Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to product authentication to ensure authenticity and traceability throughout a product supply chain and thereafter. In practice, each product will be issued with a unique identifier (ID) at a time of manufacture and the identifier will be stored in a private distributed ledger (e.g. Blockchain) along with related authentication data providing details of the product and ownership data identifying the current owner of the product. For example, the authentication data may comprise a product code; a product description; a product name; a product type; a batch identifier; a consignment code; a manufacturer identifier; a time stamp; a date stamp; a production date. [0083]: In one embodiment, an open source “QR code generating library” is used to generate a unique identifier for each product and then converted into a QR code that is linked to a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) for a specific block on the distributed ledger 110, which contains the authentication data for that product identifier. Each unique product identifier is generated in a batch (although they can be created individually, if necessary).
Greco et al (US 20180108024 A1) discloses [0032] Embodiments described herein are directed to a system, device and process of provenance tracking for the supply chain that enables verifying identity of goods via identifiers managed via an open registry, proving possession, and registering supply-chain-related transactions on a transaction ledger. As a result, the embodiments are able to prevent counterfeiting, forgery and integrity breaches for sealed contents via unique and unforgeable cryptographic identity. [0087] The registry data of the registry 1406 is able to comprise identifiers (e.g. public keys, serial numbers, authentication values or other identifiers as described herein) of goods 1402 moving through the supply chain. For example, the data is able to comprise an authentication value that matches a hash or other mathematical manipulation of a secret stored on the tags. For example, the data is able to be encrypted such that it is only able to be decrypted by decryption/encryption key stored/indicated by the tag 1403. For example, the decryption/encryption key is able to be the private key and/or a secret of the alphanumeric value stored/indicated by the tags
However, the closest prior art either singularly or in combination, fail
anticipate or render obvious to following claimed features,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: M. A. Prada-Delgado, G. Dittmann, I. Circiumaru and J. Jelitto, "A Blockchain-Based Crypto-Anchor Platform for Interoperable Product Authentication," 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Daegu, Korea, 2021, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/ISCAS51556.2021.9401582 describes, Crypto anchors are product authentication technologies that hamper counterfeiters and securely link a physical product to its digital extension [2]. A product typically has an ID, identifying either the individual instance or a larger group of items, e.g., a lot or product type. A crypto anchor protects this ID by associating it with a property that is hard to clone, forge and hard to transfer to another object. To authenticate a product a reader, often just a smartphone, scans both the object ID and the crypto anchor and sends the result to a reference database. Only if the pair is found in the database the product is authentic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAME BALLOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1359. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
MAAME BALLOU
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/MAAME BALLOU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights