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 response and amendment dated 2/23/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 21-30 are added. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration.1 Claims 1-30 are pending.
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 1-10, 21-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vargas (US 2017/0132892, previously cited) in view of Martinez de Velasco Cortina, et al. (US 2015/0048159, herein Cortina).2 Regarding claims 1 and 30, Vargas teaches an electronic system for managing an object, comprising: an RFID chip embedded within the object to be managed, the RFID chip having a unique identifier associated with the object (paragraph 0003); a device with chip reading technology for scanning the RFID chip and launching an application (paragraph 0044: mobile device and application); a database that is stored online, wherein the database includes an index of a plurality of RFID unique identifiers (paragraph 0007); the application stored on the mobile device that accesses the database and locates the object in the database using the RFID unique identifier, the database containing information regarding the object (paragraph 0044); and a user interface within the application for interacting with the database (paragraph 0044: the application is necessarily have an interface). Vargas does not explicitly teach the RFID chip embedded in a structural portion of the object to be managed; and automatically launching an application in response to the scanning of the RFID chip. Cortina teaches the RFID chip embedded in a structural portion of the object to be managed (paragraph 0040); and automatically launching an application in response to the scanning of the RFID chip (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Vargas and Cortina, because such a combination can be adapted to be embedded in objects without substantially protruding from the object (paragraph 0076 of Cortina). Regarding claim 2, Vargas further teaches the device is selected from the group of devices comprised of a mobile device (paragraph 0044), a mobile telephone, a tablet, and a desktop computer. Regarding claim 3, Vargas further teaches an anti- theft system in which the RFID chip is activated upon being read by a chip reader, and wherein the chip reader is used to establish contact with the RFID chip and transmit a location of the object to the database (paragraph 0035). Regarding claim 4, Vargas further teaches the system is further comprised of a social media component within the application that allows users to follow the object or the artist owner of the object (paragraph 0053: social media connection necessarily includes following) and make social media posts (paragraph 0045). Regarding claim 5, Vargas further teaches the RFID chip is embedded within the body of the object (paragraph 0002). Regarding claim 6, Vargas further teaches the RFID chip is passive or active (paragraph 0002: every RFID transponder is either active or passive). Regarding claim 7, Vargas further teaches the object is selected from the group of objects comprised of objects of inherent value (paragraph 0002: garments have inherent value), objects of non-inherent value, memorabilia, musical instruments, sports equipment, clothing (paragraph 0002: garments are clothing), costumes (paragraph 0002: garments serve as costumes), fashion accessories (paragraph 0002: garments are fashion accessories), and historical objects. Regarding claim 8, Vargas further teaches the chip reader is a near field communication (NFC) chip reader (paragraph 0023). Regarding claim 9, Vargas further teaches the application uses the NFC chip reading technology to establish a wireless connection with the RFID chip (paragraph 0023). Regarding claim 10, Vargas further teaches the database enables authentication of the object (paragraph 0042). Regarding claim 21, Cortina further teaches the RFID chip is embedded within a non-removable structural portion of the object and is inaccessible without destructive alteration of the object (paragraph 0040). Regarding claim 22, Cortina further teaches the RFID chip is disposed within an internal cavity of the object and concealed by a material matching the surrounding structure of the object (paragraph 0076). Regarding claim 23, Vargas further teaches the database stores a chain-of-custody record comprising a chronological log of ownership and authenticated scanning events associated with the RFID unique identifier (paragraph 0025). Regarding claim 24, Vargas further teaches each scanning event is recorded in the database together with a timestamp and geographic location associated with the scanning device (paragraph 0050). Regarding claim 25, Vargas further teaches a plurality of independent mobile devices are configured to detect the RFID chip and transmit location information of the object to the database without requiring ownership of the object (paragraph 0044). Regarding claim 26, Vargas further teaches the RFID chip is configured to enter a security-reporting mode upon activation by a scanning device and transmit identifying data enabling remote tracking of the object (paragraph 0025). Regarding claim 27, Vargas further teaches the database associates the RFID unique identifier with a unique object-level social media account accessible to multiple users independent of ownership (paragraph 0025). Regarding claim 28, Vargas further teaches users who are not owners of the object are permitted to access selected information associated with the object and post commentary linked to the object's RFID unique identifier (paragraph 0058).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 21-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Cortina has been used to teach the newly added limitations. See above.
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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:00 AM ET - 4:30 PM ET, Friday 7:00 AM ET - 11:00 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.3
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
1 See Response to Restriction dated 8/4/25. Applicant is reminded of rejoinder procedure as outlined in MPEP § 821.04. Rejoinder will be considered when appropriate.
2 In addition to the cited paragraphs in each reference, please see also the associated figures.
3 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.