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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 05/01/2026, has been entered and fully considered.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection of claims 1-3, 11-13, 16-18 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 11-13, 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A Prong I, Applicant argues that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, the features claimed cannot be interpreted as being directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. However, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). The claimed steps of “acquiring sensor data…” and “processing the sensor data” correspond to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed steps of “creating a unique digital asset…” and “storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset…” correspond to limitation that can be practically performed in the human mind with the use of pen and paper, performed in a computer environment. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2). For example, a mirrored unique asset of a real-world tangible asset is a pen and paper drawing of the real-world tangible asset. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, claimed steps of “creating a unique digital asset…” are the same steps that humans in analogous situations use to draw a picture using pen and paper. Further, storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset is a lower-quality drawing of a real-world tangible asset on paper. The claimed steps of “storing … in a secured cloud storage architecture” merely use computers as a tool to perform the mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Therefore, the claimed invention is directed toward the abstract idea of a mental process under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12-13, with respect to the claim amendments overcoming the cited prior art references of the rejection of claims 11-5, 11-13, 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; however, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection – as necessitated by amendment – is made.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11 recite “one or more one or more” in lines 2, 5, respectively. The examiner will assume this is a typographical error of a duplicated phrase, and the intended recitation is “…asset from one or more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 23, 26, 29 are 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.
Claims 23, 26, 29 recite the limitation "the status" in lines 2, 3, 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 23, 26, 29 recite the limitation "the real-world asset" in lines 2-3, 3, 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-5, 11-13, 16-18, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset, comprising: “acquiring sensor data…”, “processing the sensor data…”, “creating a unique digital asset…”, “storing a lower-fidelity representation…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset, comprising: “acquiring sensor data…”, “processing the sensor data…”, “creating a unique digital asset…”, “storing a lower-fidelity representation…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “acquiring sensor data…”, “processing the sensor data…”, “creating a unique digital asset…”, “storing a lower-fidelity representation…” does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
However, the Examiner notes subject matter disclosed in paragraphs [00118], of the specification as filed, related to recreating a real-world tangible asset from a Proxy, in this case a key. The Examiner finds that this subject matter most likely appears to recite elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., computer system, hardware processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, secured cloud storage architecture) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., acquiring, processing, creating, storing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed sensor data, feature sets, attributes, landmarks, state-space reconstruction model, lower-fidelity representation are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, processing the sensor data, creating the unique digital asset, learning a state-space reconstruction model, performing one or more frequency analysis processes, uniquely identifying an asset, sequencing updates at regular intervals which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Similarly, acquiring sensor data, extracting unique landmarks, storing a representation, a unique digital asset comprises provenance data and state data is merely storing, updating and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further note that the abstract idea of creating a representative digital asset from a real-world asset to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing/technological environment, e.g., an artist observes an object and draw a detailed painting by identifying unique landmarks on the object. The artist also draws a sketch of the object with less detail than the detailed painting.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13, 16-18, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrow et al. (USP App Pub 2021/0399893; hereinafter Withrow) in view of Son et al. (USP App Pub 2015/0109415; hereinafter Son) in further view of Fasano (USP App Pub 2021/0248289).
Regarding claim 1, A method (Withrow: paragraph [0003], “This application pertains to methods, systems, and software to create and manage a database storing an associated digital file (“ADF”) securely linked to a physical object of value”) comprising:
acquiring sensor data (Withrow: FIG. 1, scanner 102; paragraph [0222], “Broadly, any device that can sense and capture either electromagnetic radiation or mechanical wave that has traveled through an object or reflected off an object or any other means to capture surface or internal structure of an object is a candidate to create a “scan” of an object”) from a real-world tangible asset (Withrow: paragraph [0065], “physical object 100 may be presented to a scanner 102 to acquire image data”; paragraph [0035], “Physical object—includes any tangible object that is movable”) … and one or more exteroceptive sensors (Withrow: paragraph [0222], “Thus a “scan” may refer to an image (or digital data that defines an image) captured by … a microphone (or other instruments for converting sound waves into electrical energy variations)”; Applicant specification as filed: paragraph [0068], “a smartphone microphone might be used as an extereoceptive sensor”);
processing the sensor data (Withrow: paragraph [0065], “The image data is processed by a process 104 to extract digital fingerprint(s) of the key object 100”) that is acquired to generate one or more feature sets that (Withrow: paragraph [0070], “In the sample ADF record 200, it includes data such as … digital fingerprint(s) of the physical object, block 228”; paragraph [0146], “digital fingerprints typically include information, preferably in the form of numbers or “feature vectors,” that describes features that appear at particular locations, called points of interest”) are representative of one or more attributes of the real-world tangible asset (Withrow: paragraph [0146], “In the 3-D case, the points of interest may be on the surface or in the interior of the object. In some applications, an object “feature template” may be used to define locations or regions of interest for a class of objects. Feature vectors may be extracted from the regions of interest. The digital fingerprints may be derived or generated from digital data of the object which may be, for example, image data”);
creating a unique digital asset (Withrow: paragraph [0012], “creating an associated digital file (“ADF”) of the physical object in a secure datastore”) that mirrors (Withrow: paragraph [0051], “The digital fingerprints as utilized herein must characterize a single object, preserve little or no “group” or “class” information, be extractable solely from properties of the object itself, and be repeatable to such a degree that a match between two extractions approaches near-absolute certainty”) the one or more attributes of the real-world tangible asset (Withrow: paragraph [0038], “The ADF is securely linked to the actual physical object (and vice versa) by storing digital fingerprints of the physical object.”) by performing a high-fidelity mirroring operation (Withrow: paragraph [0147], “In the context of this description a digital fingerprint is a digital representation of the physical object. It can be captured from features of the surface, the internals, the progression of the object in time, and any other repeatable way that creates a digital fingerprint that can be uniquely and securely assigned to the particular digital object”) … for one or more measurable attributes of the real-world tangible asset and one or more hidden attributes of the real-world tangible asset (Withrow: paragraph [0222], “Thus a “scan” may refer to an image (or digital data that defines an image) captured by … an x-ray machine, a sonar, an ultrasound machine … sense and capture either electromagnetic radiation or mechanical wave that has traveled through an object or reflected off an object or any other means to capture surface or internal structure of an object is a candidate to create a “scan” of an object” i.e., internal structure like an x-ray corresponds to the claimed hidden attributes and surface structure corresponds to a measurable attribute) …
Withrow does not teach … from one or more one or more proprioceptive sensors … by performing a high-fidelity mirroring operation that observes system and interaction dynamics of the one or more attributes and adapts to learn an efficient state-space reconstruction model appropriate…; and storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset in a secured cloud storage architecture.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Son does teach … by performing a high-fidelity mirroring operation (Son: paragraph [0052], “the high resolution reconstruction unit 50 may receive the depth map sequence and the pose change information of the depth camera 10 after the depth camera 10 completes a scan to reconstruct a high resolution 3D model”) that observes system and interaction dynamics of the one or more attributes (Son: paragraph [0045], “The depth camera 10 is a scanning device or depth sensor designed to capture a scene or surrounding environment (space) and acquire real-time three-dimensional (3D) information of the scene including various objects (e.g., stationary objects such as walls or obstacles or dynamic objects including humans or animals)”) and adapts to learn (Son: claim 1, “a high resolution reconstruction unit that processes the first depth map by using the pose change information of the depth camera that is extracted from the second depth map and reconstructs a high resolution 3D model”) an efficient state-space reconstruction model appropriate (Son: paragraph [0071], “The high resolution reconstruction unit 50 stores the reconstructed high resolution 3D model in the memory (S76). The stored high resolution 3D model may be used in various application systems that use animation movies, games, or characters”; Instant application specification: paragraph [00110], “adapting to learn an efficient state- space reconstruction model appropriate for the measurable and hidden attributes of the asset, in this case, a key. This is called the "minimum viable representation," and it depends both on the system being mirrored and the end-use applications for its data”)…; and
storing a lower-fidelity representation of the unique digital asset in a secured cloud storage architecture (Son: paragraph [0126], “When the computing device 200 is implemented on a cloud server, the mobile terminal 100 may upload the result of reconstruction of a low resolution 3D model to the cloud server”; paragraph [0128], “communicate with the cloud server 300 via a network such as the Internet or wirelessly by using any suitable method”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the object scan of Withrow to incorporate the teachings of Son to use a high resolution and low resolution model. The motivation for doing so is to have real-time monitoring with the low resolution model (Son: paragraph [0056], “reconstructs a low resolution 3D model in real-time by using a low resolution depth map, thereby allowing real-time monitoring”) and application use for the high resolution model (Son: paragraph [0054], “the high resolution 3D model may be used in a wide variety of application systems that use animation movies, games, and characters”).
Withrow and Son does not teach …from one or more one or more proprioceptive sensors …
However, it the same field of endeavor, Fasano does teach …from one or more one or more proprioceptive sensors (Fasano: paragraph [0002], “a digital system operating based on versatile digital avatars providing exact replicas or digital twins of physical objects and processes”; paragraph [0026], “The status parameters 43 are assigned to the digital twin representation 4, wherein the values of the status parameters 43 associated with the digital twin representation 4 are dynamically monitored and adapted based on the transmitted parameters”; paragraph [0028], “The structural and/or operational and/or environmental status parameters 43 can e.g. comprise endogen parameters, whose values are determined by the real-world asset or object… proprioceptive sensors or measuring devices for sensing endogen operating or status parameters of the real-world asset or object”) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the 3D scanning system of Withrow and Son to incorporate the teachings of Fasano to use proprioceptive sensors to associate with the digital twin. The motivation for doing so is to capture data that is coming from within the real-world object (Fasano: paragraph [0028], “endogen parameters, whose values are determined by the real-world asset or object”).
Regarding claim 2, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data (Withrow: paragraph [0222], “Broadly, any device that can sense and capture either electromagnetic radiation or mechanical wave that has traveled through an object or reflected off an object or any other means to capture surface or internal structure of an object is a candidate to create a “scan” of an object”) is acquired from one or more proprioceptive sensors, one or more exteroceptive sensors (Withrow: paragraph [0222], “Thus a “scan” may refer to an image (or digital data that defines an image) captured by … a microphone (or other instruments for converting sound waves into electrical energy variations)”; Applicant specification as filed: paragraph [0068], “a smartphone microphone might be used as an exteroceptive sensor”), manually entered data, derived identifiable digital data, metadata, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein the processing (Withrow: paragraph [0065], “The image data is processed by a process 104 to extract digital fingerprint(s) of the key object 100”) comprises performing one or more frequency analysis processes, one or more cepstrum analytic processes, one or more filtering processes, one or more wavelet analysis processes, one or more spectral analysis processes, one or more image processing processes (Withrow: paragraph [0065], “The image data is processed by a process 104 to extract digital fingerprint(s) of the key object 100”), one or more computer vision processing processes, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more feature sets (Withrow: paragraph [0146], “digital fingerprints typically include information, preferably in the form of numbers or “feature vectors,” that describes features that appear at particular locations, called points of interest”) are resistant to perturbations (Withrow: paragraph [0151], “feature extraction or feature detection may be used to characterize points of interest. In an embodiment, this may be done in various ways. Two examples include Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (or SIFT) and Speeded Up Robust features (or SURF)… SIFT and SURF are most useful approaches to detect and matching of features because it is invariant to scale, rotate, translation, illumination, and blur” i.e., being invariant to translation means it is resistant to perturbations. See References Cited) so that one or more unique landmarks (Withrow: paragraph [0146], “features that appear at particular locations, called points of interest”) associated with the one or more attributes of the real-world tangible asset are uniquely identifiable (Withrow: paragraph [0012], “storing the digital fingerprint of the physical object in the ADF, so as to securely and uniquely link the ADF to the physical object in an unspoofable manner”).
Regarding claim 5, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more unique landmarks are extractable (Withrow: paragraph [0151], “feature extraction or feature detection may be used to characterize points of interest. In an embodiment, this may be done in various ways. Two examples include Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (or SIFT) and Speeded Up Robust features (or SURF)”) without prior knowledge or human intervention (Withrow: paragraph [0153], “Features may be point, line, edges, and blob of an image etc. There are areas as image registration, object tracking, and object retrieval etc. that employ a system or processor to detect and match correct features” i.e., feature extraction is executed by a processor; paragraph [0021], “FIG. 3A is a simplified flow diagram of an algorithm”; FIG. 3A, Generate or Acquire Digital Fingerprint of Particular Physical Object Step 302 i.e., SURF is an algorithm executed by a processor).
Re. claims 11-13, they recite analogous limitations as claims 1-3, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Re. claims 16-18, they recite analogous limitations as claims 1-3, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein
the unique digital asset (Withrow: paragraph [0055], “The ADF may contain various additional data, depending on the specific application … These items are listed by way of examples and not limitation:”) comprises provenance data (Withrow: paragraph [0199], “storing supplemental data related to the physical object in the ADF, wherein the supplemental data includes at least one of”; paragraph [0202], “what is known about the physical object's provenance and its subsequent history”) and state data (Withrow: paragraph [0058], “a ledger of current … owners of the object”), wherein the provenance data attests to a trustworthiness and accuracy of the real-world tangible asset, the unique digital asset, or both the unique digital asset (Withrow: paragraph [0070], “In the sample ADF record 200, it includes data such as … history and pedigree data of the physical object”; paragraph [0012], “so as to securely and uniquely link the ADF to the physical object in an unspoofable manner”) and the real-world tangible asset and the current state data provide information and the state data is based on a current state of the real-world tangible asset, the unique digital asset, or both the unique digital asset and the real-world tangible asset (Withrow: paragraph [0071], “At any given time, the ledger reflects current ownership of the asset corresponding to the ADF 200” i.e., current ownership of the asset corresponds to the current state of being owned by an owner; paragraph [0015], “assets (real physical objects)”).
Regarding claim 22, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, wherein the provenance data (Withrow: paragraph [0055], “A digital counterpart file or associated digital file (“ADF”) (these terms may be used interchangeably), contains or is linked to the digital fingerprint of the corresponding physical object as noted. The ADF may contain various additional data … These items are listed by way of examples and not limitation”; paragraph [0202], “what is known about the physical object's provenance and its subsequent history”) comprises information based on a history of data acquisition (Withrow: paragraph [0070], “In the sample ADF record 200, it includes data such as … history and pedigree data of the physical object”), modifications (Withrow: paragraph [0145], “Digital fingerprints maybe used to … record their…changes over time” i.e., a change is a modification), maintenance (Withrow: paragraph [0125], “maintenance records (digital files) associated with the machine”), and a custody (Withrow: paragraph [0087], “the digital fingerprint is used to identify and authenticate the physical object when it leaves custody or is transported for any reason, and when it returns”) of the real-world tangible asset (Withrow: paragraph [0015], “assets (real physical objects)”), the unique digital asset, or both the unique digital asset and the real-world tangible asset.
The motivation for combining references for the claims listed above is the same as the motivation for combing references stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Re. claims 24-25, they recite analogous limitations as claims 21-22, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Re. claims 27-28, they recite analogous limitations as claims 21-22, respectively, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 23, 26, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withrow in view of Son in further view of Fasano in further view of Mars (USP App Pub 2022/0019212).
Regarding claim 23, Withrow, Son and Fasano teach the method of claim 1, further comprising…
Withrow, Son and Fasano do not teach … sequencing, at regular intervals, both the real-world asset and the unique digital asset to update the status of both the real-world asset and the unique digital asset over time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mars does teach … sequencing, at regular intervals (Mars: paragraph [0054], “The administration subsystem 110 can be configured to send the current life request and the residual life prediction request to the operation subsystem 112 at a set request predetermined interval… Non-limiting examples of the request predetermined interval can include hourly”), both the real-world asset and the unique digital asset to update the status of both the real-world asset (Mars: paragraph [0042], “the data source 130 can include one or more sensors 130, which can measure and record the operating history data … the sensor 130 can be configured to monitor and/or measure the load of the physical asset 102, … The administration subsystem 110 can be configured to automatically receive the operating history data from the sensor 130 at a predetermined interval”) and the unique digital asset over time (Mars: paragraph [0054], “Advantageously, this can allow the digital twin instantiation 114 to be automatically updated with the current life and/or the residual life prediction to remain an up-to-date digital representation of the physical asset 102.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the updates of the ADF (Withrow: paragraph [0145], “Digital fingerprints maybe used to reliably and unambiguously identify or authenticate corresponding physical objects, track them through supply chains, record their provenance and changes over time”; paragraph [0037], “The digital twin 47 with the digital asset/object replica 48 is realized as a continuously updated, digital structure hold by the digital platform 1 that contains a comprehensive physical and functional description of a component or system throughout the life cycle”) in Withrow, Son and Fasano to incorporate the teachings of Mars to update a status of the digital twin and the associated physical asset at predetermined intervals. The motivation for doing so is to automatically receive updates for the physical object (Mars: paragraph [0042], “The administration subsystem 110 can be configured to automatically receive the operating history data from the sensor 130”) and the digital twin (Mars: paragraph [0054], “Advantageously, this can allow the digital twin instantiation 114 to be automatically updated”).
Re. claims 26, 29, they recite analogous limitations as claim 23, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
References Cited
Land et al. (USP App Pub 2020/0153822; hereinafter Land) is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that SIFT and SURF are resistant to variations (Land: paragraph [0011], “Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT), Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF), or other feature detection approaches resistant to scale, rotation, translation and illumination variations”).
Ayyad et al. (USP App Pub 2023/0073681; hereinafter Ayyad) is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that externally facing sensing is called exteroception or exteroceptive information (Ayyad: paragraph [0007], “external tactile sensing (exteroception)… exteroceptive information”).
Conclusion
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 ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached Su-Sa: 9:00 AM - 11:59 AM PST and 1:00 PM - 8 PM PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights