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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed on 4/10/2007.
Claims 1-2 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 3-22 in the reply filed on 10/14/2008 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 3-22 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 3 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “activating a product based at least in part on a context of the product, the context comprising: a Factory that produces the product, a zone in the Factory that produces the product, and a purchase order specifying the product, in which said activating yields an activated product; pairing at least one unique identifier of the product with a non-unique identifier of the product; and providing, addressed to the
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a process for activating a product that is generated and maintained. Further, the elements above recite mental processes and organizing and maintained data because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–21 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device and a step for gathering information (devices recited in the claim). When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 19 further includes an electronic device. As a result, claims 20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 4-9, 11-18 and 21-22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4-9, 11-18 and 21-22 depend. As a result, claims 4-9, 11-18 and 21-22 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 3 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 3 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an electronic device an interface circuit configured to communicate with a computer; a processor coupled to the interface circuit; memory, coupled to the processor, storing program instructions and a step for gathering information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering and maintaining information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 3 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 3. Although claim 19 further includes an electronic device, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 19 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4-9, 11-18 and 21-22 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 4-9, 11-18 and 21-22 depend. As a result, claims 4-9, 11-18 and 21-22 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 19-22 recites "means plus function" limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for:
“means for …” as recited in at least claims 19-22.
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification,perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
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 3-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guinard et al. “US 2021/0142337 A1” (Guinard).
Regarding Claim 3: An electronic device, comprising: an interface circuit configured to communicate with a computer; a processor coupled to the interface circuit; memory, coupled to the processor, storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform operations comprising:
activating a product based at least in part on a context of the product, the context comprising: a Factory that produces the product, a zone in the Factory that produces the product, and a purchase order specifying the product, in which said activating yields an activated product (at least see Guinard Abstract; Figs. 1-5; [0089] and [0096]; note: “[0077] FIG. 15 is a functional diagram showing processing flow and calls between a product activation application (e.g., running on electronic device 110 in a Factory) and Digitization Server (e.g., running on or hosted by computer server 1122). The product action application is alternatively referred to as the “Factory Activation App” in FIG. 15. The various described “services” should be understood to be offered in a cloud-based environment as cloud services and are accessible via the web or internet. The product activation application communicates with the Digitization Server, and in particular, with a Digital Twin service. The Digital Twin service manages ADI's associated with physical products. Recall from above, that an ADI can be created (but not yet activated) by the Digital Twin Service receiving a purchase order or master data from a Brand. The Digital Twin Service may also maintain factory accounts, user information, product information, collection data, etc., to facilitate activation and management of ADIs. The Digital Twin Service may also receive information via a Supply Chain Traceability Service, e.g., ASN information, Factory Events, and Purchase Order information. Information can be obtained via various integrations. E.g., packaging and labelling integrations, ERP integrations, etc. Data re authentication can be provided via Authentication Services and Analytics Engine(s). Of course, we use the term “service” in this context to mean cloud-based services delivered on demand to companies, factories and/or customers over the internet or other network. These services are designed to provide easy access to software applications, databases, and other resources, without the need for internal infrastructure, software and hardware.);
pairing at least one unique identifier of the product with a non-unique identifier of the product (at least see Guinard Abstract; Figs. 5-6; [0038] and [0053]; Note: “[0038] With reference to FIG. 5, and in one example, during or after product assembly, information is communicated from the Factory to the Digitization Server. The information includes which physical item is being activated. The information may also include Factory location, machine identification, work shift identification, material supplier information, associated Brand, etc. The Digitization Server correlates this item information with the previously received Purchase Order information. In a first example, a correlation may compare a total number of ordered products (e.g., 100 total shirts) from a Purchase Order to a manufactured number associated with the product (e.g., no. 82 or no. 103). If the manufacture number is within the allowed total (e.g., 82/100) then there is a correlation success. In a related example, a non-unique identifier associated with the product (e.g., a SKU) is used to track of items manufactured within a purchase order. For example, each time the SKU is found by the Digitization Server for that Purchase Order, the count is incremented. Thus, the Digitization Server can update a count number associated with items ordered in the purchase order. If not correlated (e.g., 103/100 total), then there is a correlation failure. In a second example, a correlation may compare individual fields within Factory activation information to ADI information (e.g., Purchase Order and/or lifecycle information) for matching data, e.g., item identification number, Factory identifier, label identifier, Brand identifier, etc. Or a hash or other reduced-bit identifier can be generated on all or some of the Purchase Order. A corresponding hash or reduced-bit identifier can be generated on corresponding portions of the item information. If the hashes match or otherwise correspond as expected, then the correlation is successful, and the item is activated. Otherwise, an unsuccessful correlation notification can be communicated from the Digitization Server to the Factory. In some cases, e.g., those involving use of a smart tag on an item, an item success activation code can be communicated back to the Factory and stored in the smart tag.”); and
providing, addressed to the computer, information specifying the context, the at least one unique identifier and the non-unique identifier, wherein the information corresponds to a digital twin of the activated product that is generated and maintained by the computer (at least see Guinard Abstract; Fig. 5; [0093] and [0124]).
Guinard discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose non-unique identifier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include non-unique identifier in Guinard Product Authenticity Verification Based On Environment, for the advantage of facilitate product authenticity verification management.
Regarding Claim 4: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the purchase order comprises: one or more product types, quantities of the one or more product types, and one or more target destinations of the one or more product types (at least see Guinard [0005]).
Regarding Claim 5: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the non-unique identifier
comprises or is related to a product type of the product (at least see Guinard Abstract; [0007]).
Regarding Claim 6: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the operations comprise updating a tag associated with the product based at least in part on activation of the product (at least see Guinard [0089]).
Regarding Claim 7: The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the tag is associated with the digital twin (at least see Guinard [0004]).
Regarding Claim 8: The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the updating of the tag comprises multi-factor authentication (at least see Guinard [0010]).
Regarding Claim 9: The electronic device of claim 6, wherein the tag is associated with a hardware device that performs authentication prior to the updating (at least see Guinard [0011]).
Regarding Claim 10: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein, prior to the activating, the operations comprise: automatically detecting whether the electronic device is a cellular telephone, a tablet, or another type of mobile electronic device; and switching, based at least in part on the automatically detecting, detection, between an external scanner mode associated with an external scanner and a native camera mode associated with an image sensor in the electronic device; and wherein at least some of the information is acquired using the external scanner or an image sensor (at least see Guinard [0005]).
Regarding Claim 11: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein manufacturing processing operations of the product are associated with the digital twin (at least see Guinard [0090]).
Regarding Claim 12: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the operations comprise: deactivating the product based at least in part on the context; and providing, addressed to the computer, second information that indicates the product has been deactivated (at least see Guinard [0089]).
Regarding Claim 13: The electronic device of claim 12, wherein the operations comprise: providing, addressed to the computer, the at least one unique identifier, a deactivation request for the product, and at least some of the information; and receiving, associated with the computer, a deactivation response (at least see Guinard Abstract; Figs. 5; [0089]).
Regarding Claim 14: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the electronic device comprises a display; and wherein the operations comprise displaying a user interface with a summary of global production of the product independent of the Factory (at least see Guinard [0054]).
Regarding Claim 15: The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the operations comprise performing real-time tracking of a lifecycle of [[a]] the product based at least in part on the digital twin (at least see Guinard [0094]).
Regarding Claim 16: A computer configured to perform counterpart operations to at least some of the operations performed by the electronic device of claim 3 (at least see Guinard [0063]).
Regarding Claim 17: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for use with the electronic device of claim 3, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions, wherein, when executed by the electronic device, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform the operations performed by the electronic device or counterpart operations to at least some of the operations performed by the electronic device (at least see Guinard Abstract; Fig. 2; [0075]).
Regarding Claim 18: A method for activating a product that is performed by the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the electronic device performs the operations performed by the electronic device (at least see Guinard [0072]).
Regarding Claims 19-22: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 3-18.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627