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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-26, drawn to method and system for tracking and managing product record, classified in G06Q 20/4014.
II. Claims 27-30, drawn to method for tracking and monitoring product ownership, classified in G06Q 10/027.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for providing tiered access to said gateway based on the PDI, enabling differentiated levels of access and services according to the encoded information. The subcombination has separate utility such as embedding a keepsake in a lens or frame of an eyewear, wherein the keepsake being any portion of a physical item with commemorative value, commemorating an event, public figure, or venue.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or
(b) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Mohamed Azeez (Reg. No. 71,694) on 01/26/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-26. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method and system for tracking and managing product record.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…scan the readable chip;
…transmit the multi-encoded PDI from the readable chip to the network-connected device upon scanning;
…send the multi-encoded PDI from the network-connected device to a backend server;
…verify the multi-encoded PDI against a pre-registered database of multi-encoded PDIs on the backend server;
…retrieve detailed information associated with the multi-encoded PDI from a secure database;
…utilize the multi-encoded PDI to access the digital gateway providing access to at least one platform services including at least one of authentication, chain of custody information, information about the physical item, a marketplace for buying and selling the physical item, a bidding platform for auctioning the physical item, a matching service to connect with other users with similar interests or ownership, and invitations to events associated with the user or the brand linked to the physical item; and
…provide tiered access to said gateway based on the multi-encoded PDI, enabling differentiated levels of access and services according to the encoded information”.
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (encoded PDI), 2) transmitting the collected data, 3) comparing the collected data to stored data, 4) retrieve record associated with received data, and 5) providing access to retrieved data based on defined parameters (tiered access).
The above steps describe the process of tracking and managing product record access within a database. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of one or more computing elements (readable chip, network-connected device, digital platform, backend server) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing elements represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “…storing a multi-encoded physical-digital identifier (PDI), the multi-encoded PDI comprising a multi-part alphanumeric string with each part encoding distinct information about the physical item…” and “…registering and authenticating the physical item by associating the multi-encoded PDI with the owner profile and providing the tiered-access to the digital gateway” represents inputting and storing data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The step of “…storing a multi-encoded physical-digital identifier (PDI), the multi-encoded PDI comprising a multi-part alphanumeric string with each part encoding distinct information about the physical item…” and “…registering and authenticating the physical item by associating the multi-encoded PDI with the owner profile and providing the tiered-access to the digital gateway”, which amounts to inputting and storing data, has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In addition, the computing elements represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-26 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
For example, claims 2-10 describe the type of information/data retrieved and/or associated with the multi-encoded PDI, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 14-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2017/0345019 (Radocchia et al. – hereinafter Radocchia).
Referring to claim 1, Radocchia discloses a system for digital management of a physical item, comprising:
a physical item embedded with a readable chip configured for scanning, the chip storing a multi-encoded physical-digital identifier (PDI), the multi-encoded PDI comprising a multi-part alphanumeric string with each part encoding distinct information about the physical item, such as at least one of an owner profile and tiered-access to a digital gateway; [See paragraphs 0020, 0027-0029]
a network-connected device operable to scan the readable chip; [See paragraphs 0020-0022, 0028, 0029, 0035, 0036]
a digital platform accessible over a network, the platform comprising: an authentication module for registering and authenticating the physical item by associating the multi-encoded PDI with the owner profile and providing the tiered-access to the digital gateway; [See paragraphs 0020-0022, 0033, 0034, 0036, 0039]
wherein the system is configured to:
transmit the multi-encoded PDI from the readable chip to the network-connected device upon scanning; [See paragraphs 0020, 0025, 0035, 0036]
send the multi-encoded PDI from the network-connected device to a backend server; [See paragraphs 0020, 0025, 0033, 0035, 0036]
verify the multi-encoded PDI against a pre-registered database of multi-encoded PDIs on the backend server; [See paragraphs 0106, 0033, 0036, 0039]
retrieve detailed information associated with the multi-encoded PDI from a secure database; [See paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0036, 0038]
utilize the multi-encoded PDI to access the digital gateway providing access to at least one platform services including at least one of authentication, chain of custody information, information about the physical item, a marketplace for buying and selling the physical item, a bidding platform for auctioning the physical item, a matching service to connect with other users with similar interests or ownership, and invitations to events associated with the user or the brand linked to the physical item; and [See paragraphs 0024, 0030-0032, 0038, 0047, 0048]
provide tiered access to said gateway based on the multi-encoded PDI, enabling differentiated levels of access and services according to the encoded information. [See paragraphs 0032, 0041, 0047, 0048, 0049]
Referring to claim 2, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the readable chip is an NFC (Near Field Communication) chip, the multi-encoded PDI being structured as an encrypted multi-part alphanumeric string for secure transmission. [See paragraphs 0020, 0027-0029]
Referring to claim 3, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for chain of custody information, tracking the lifecycle and ownership history of the physical item. [See paragraphs 0030, 0035, 0039]
Referring to claim 4, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for detailed information about the physical item, including product type and serial number for authentication of the physical item. [See paragraphs 0030, 0033, 0034, 0038, 0039]
Referring to claim 6, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for user interaction metrics, wherein the user interaction metrics crawls for a digital footprint across the platform. [See paragraph 0049]
Referring to claim 7, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for real-time valuation data, facilitating an exchange for buying and selling the physical item. [See paragraph 0049]
Referring to claim 8, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for bidding history for the physical item across a bidding platform for auctioning the physical item. [See paragraphs 0049-0051 – One or more types of information may be associated with the tag identifier.]
Referring to claim 9, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for transaction details, managing the secure transfer of ownership and fulfillment of delivery and payment transactions. [See paragraph 0049]
Referring to claim 10, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for tiered access to the digital gateway and providing invitations to events associated with the owner or the brand linked to the physical item based on a loyalty score, wherein the loyalty score is based on at least one of authentication of the physical item, chain of custody, valuation of physical item, user interaction metrics, bidding history, or transaction history. [See paragraphs 0049, 0050]
Referring to claims 14-17 and 19-23, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-4 and 6-10, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
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.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,619,745 (Chabbott).
Referring to claim 5, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1 above. Radocchia does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for keepsake details, wherein the keepsake is at least a portion of any physical item that commemorates a figure, event, or venue that is further embedded in the physical item.
Chabbott teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the multi-encoded PDI encodes for keepsake details, wherein the keepsake is at least a portion of any physical item that commemorates a figure, event, or venue that is further embedded in the physical item. [See col. 1, lines 38-48; col. 2, lines 13-19]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Radocchia to have incorporated a nfc tag configuration as in Chabbott with the motivation of accessing information associated with an NFC item. [See Radocchia paragraph 0019; Chabbott col. 2, lines 13-18 and col. 4, lines 37-49]
Claims 11-13 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radocchia as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0084215 (Sakai).
Referring to claim 11, Radocchia discloses the system of claim 1 above. Radocchia does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the physical item is embedded with a display of a color and/or symbol indicating a range of value of at least the physical item and/or digital gateway privileges based on at least one of the physical item value and/or owner loyalty score.
Sakai teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the physical item is embedded with a display of a color and/or symbol indicating a range of value of at least the physical item and/or digital gateway privileges based on at least one of the physical item value and/or owner loyalty score. [See paragraphs 0021, 0022]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Radocchia to have incorporated a display device as in Sakai with the motivation of displaying product information associated with a physical item. [See Radocchia paragraph 0019; Sakai paragraph 0009]
Referring to claim 12, the combination of Radocchia and Sakai discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the display is a static physical display on a visible surface of the physical item. [See paragraphs 0021, 0022 – The display device can be placed on the surface of the item.]
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Radocchia and Sakai discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the display is a dynamic display on a visible surface of the physical item, wherein the dynamic display is a light display of colors and symbols that dynamically indicate a real-time value of at least the physical item and/or digital gateway privileges. [See paragraphs 0021, 0022]
Referring to claims 24-26, they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 11-13, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627