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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that many of the intended claims do not appear to clearly limit the claims other than citing intended uses of the system recited in independent claim 1. That is, the recitations of attributes of the encoded security seal, in the image received by the system of claim 1, do not limit the system itself. It is also noted that claim 1 recites “memory configured to store” a program, but does not actually recite storing such an authentication program, and further recites having logical instructions that, when executed, “enable” the processing device, while not actually requiring such processing steps to be performed. Claims 13-15 also claim enabling certain functions, which amounts to claiming a general purpose computer. While the claim is addressed based on its assumed intended scope, it is noted that actual scope of claim 1 generically encompasses any system with a processing device and memory. The dependent claims have similar scope issues. For example, claims 9-11 recite features of a user device that captures the image received in claim 1. However, that user device is not part of the claimed system, so those claims amount to mere recitations of intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 20 recites “receiving a scanned image of an encoded security seal printed on a print medium associated with a package configured for protecting a manufactured product; extracting a set of coded information from the scanned image of the encoded security seal; and in response to analyzing the set of coded information, determining whether the manufactured product is authentic”. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “Product Authentication Processes”, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity [fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). “Product Authentication Processes” is considered to be is a method of organizing human activity because the process of visually inspecting and validating the authenticity of products. Such processes are regularly performed by customers shopping in a store to verify the authenticity of things they may purchase, including the scanned images presented on commercial websites such as Ebay. Similar processes are conducted by salespeople when determining the authenticity of cash by inspecting and verifying security features in US treasury notes. The review of real life object images and comparison to authenticated products may also be considered a mental process. As such, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites substantially similar features to those recited in representative claim 20 and are ineligible based on substantially the same reasons.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 20 recites no additional elements. As such, nothing in that claim can integrate the abstract ideal into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a processing device; and memory configured to store an authentication program having logical instructions. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely recite generically commercially available computer technology used to perform the abstract idea. That is, the recitations of additional elements amount merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The abstract idea is regularly performed by humans, with and without technology, the claim 1 at most recites a technological environment for performing the abstract idea, without in an improvement in technology or addressing a technological problem. Accordingly, the additional elements also do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
As noted above, claim 20 recites no additional elements and, as such, nothing in that claim can amount to significantly more. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. That is, as noted above, the abstract idea is regularly performed by humans, with and without technology. Claim 1 at most recites a technological environment for performing the abstract idea, without in an improvement in technology or addressing a technological problem. Accordingly, claims 1 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-19 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the encoded security seal includes one or more visible attributes and one or more hidden attributes, and wherein extracting the set of coded information includes obtaining the set of coded information from at least the one or more hidden attributes, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 3 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the one or more hidden attributes include one or more of a) a set of angles associated with lines or text in the one or more visible attributes, b) a depth map obtained by a depth sensor, and c) three dimensional system placement features, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the one or more hidden attributes include one or more of a hologram and a steganographic image, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the one or more visible attributes include added or manipulated pixels and/or imperfections in one or more of an image, logo, text, and border associated with the one or more visible attributes, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 5 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the one or more visible attributes further include arbitrary noise intended to deceive a counterfeiter, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the one or more visible attributes include a barcode or QR code configured to reference a trusted web address, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 7 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the one or more hidden attributes are hidden within the barcode or QR code, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the scanned image is obtained by a camera of a user device associated with a consumer who has purchased the manufactured product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of receiving the scanned image is performed by a trust entity in communication with the user device, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the user device is a mobile device, and wherein receiving, extracting, and determining are performed by an app or Software Development Kit (SDK) running on the mobile device, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 12 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the scanned image is obtained by a device associated with a distributor or retailer in a supply chain between a manufacturer of the manufactured product and a consumer of the manufactured product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the logical instructions further enable the processing device to store one or more sets of encoded information in a blockchain format and determine authenticity of the manufactured product throughout the supply chain, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 13 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 14 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of enabling the processing device to record multiple sets of coded information extracted from scanned images of multiple encoded security seals printed in association with multiple packages, wherein each set of coded information includes a non-repeatable nonce, and wherein determining that the manufactured product is authentic includes observing that the respective non-repeatable nonce has not been previously replayed, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 14 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 15 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of in response to determining whether the manufactured product is authentic, enabling the processing device to provide an indication to a consumer of the manufactured product as to whether the manufactured product is authentic or counterfeit, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 15 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the print medium is one or more of a) an outer surface of the package and b) a label attached to the outer surface of the package, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 16 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 17 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the print medium is one or more of a) a piece of paper or card placed inside the package during manufacturing and b) an inside surface of the package, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 17 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 18 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the set of coded information includes one or more of validity information, manufacturer information, manufacturing date, manufacturing location, product information, product serial number, product expiration date, and expiration date of a certificate associated with a manufacturer or product, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 18 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 19 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Authentication Processes” by introducing the element of the set of coded information includes encrypted information using Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) cryptography, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 19 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-19 also do not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims refer to a user device, a blockchain format, and an app or Software Development Kit (SDK) running on a mobile device, those elements are not recited as part of the system of claim 1. Rather, they are recited as intended uses of the claimed system. As such, nothing in the claims integrates the exception into a practical application or is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-19 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 1-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200357002 to Caton et al.
With regards to claims 1 and 20, Caton et al. teaches:
a processing device; and memory configured to store an authentication program having logical instructions (paragraph [0221], “In some embodiments, the website server 1630 and/or the security service 1640 can each be cloud-based. The website server 1630 and/or the security service 1640 can include one or more remotely located servers configured to receive and respond to messages from the user terminal 1620 and/or mobile device 1610 via signals conveyed via a local area network, a wide area network, and/or the Internet according to various messaging protocols and/or standards. The user terminal 1620 may be, for example, a computing device with network connectivity, and one or more processors configured to execute program instructions stored in a non-transitory memory storage.”) that, when executed, enable the processing device to
receive a scanned image of an encoded security seal printed on a print medium associated with a package configured for protecting a manufactured product (paragraph [0068], “As a means of product identification and tracking, a barcode such as a Universal Product Code (UPC) or a Quick Response (QR) code is often printed on the packaging of consumer products. These printed codes are optically scanned for rapid decoding.”; paragraph [0083], “According to some embodiments, any information in parameters 115 can be modified to customize the detection capability for security purposes. Parameters 115 include, for example, line frequency, screen angles, text/content, image structure, color, and related data. Further, in some embodiments, the contents of parameters 115 are subscriber-specific.”; paragraph [0113], “Indications of authenticity can then be stored, along with information about the product being scanned and/or retail location of the scanned product by the security service for use in future investigations of product authenticity (e.g., for determining product diversions, counterfeits, and the like).”),
extract a set of coded information from the scanned image of the encoded security seal (paragraph [0119], “The security service 130 can then analyze the received image and extract encoded information indicated by the security feature. The extracted information can then be used to identify a particular product associated with the extracted information, and optionally a serial number or the like for the purchased product.”; Fig. 6, paragraph [0173], “According to some embodiments, the pattern of FIG. 6 or similar pattern is concealed within the hidden/covert security feature 122, using previously described security features such as Prism™, Veriglow™, and/or other security features. The pattern may be positioned such that it is adjacent to, surrounding or otherwise in close proximity to additional image and/or text information. In some embodiments, the additional image information is a one dimensional barcode (UPC), two dimensional barcode (for example, QR, data matrix, PDF417, or Aztec), or other image information. Examples of the combination of a barcode with a pattern and additional hidden text are illustrated in FIG. 9A-9D.”), and
in response to analyzing the set of coded information, determine whether the manufactured product is authentic (paragraph [0174], “In some embodiments, the pattern is screened to match the hidden/covert security feature 122. According to some embodiments, the hidden/covert security feature 122 contains the phrase “VALID” or similar language to indicate the authenticity of a barcode or other image adjacent to the hidden/covert security feature 122.”).
With regards to claim 2, Caton et al. teaches
the encoded security seal includes one or more visible attributes and one or more hidden attributes (paragraph [0068], “As a means of product identification and tracking, a barcode such as a Universal Product Code (UPC) or a Quick Response (QR) code is often printed on the packaging of consumer products. These printed codes are optically scanned for rapid decoding. However, barcodes are readily visible on the product packaging and are susceptible to copying, adjustment, and other forgery. To reduce fraud, it is desirable to add hidden security information to product packaging as an alternative, or in conjunction with, barcode information and/or other tracking and identification information.”), and
wherein extracting the set of coded information includes obtaining the set of coded information from at least the one or more hidden attributes (paragraph [0071], “According to some embodiments, the system provides configurable applications for mobile platforms that decode and authenticate hidden or covert security features. This can be accomplished using internal manipulation of the camera feed, image processing both on the smart device and a cloud-based server, and/or database lookup/authentication capability on the cloud-based server. In one example, the hosted security service supports a plurality of camera-enabled smart devices, wherein the digital image data acquired by each device is used to identify the presence or absence of hidden/covert security features in physical documents.”).
With regards to claim 3, Caton et al. teaches the one or more hidden attributes include one or more of a) a set of angles associated with lines or text in the one or more visible attributes, b) a depth map obtained by a depth sensor, and c) three dimensional system placement features (paragraph [0069], “Optimally, it would be desirable to authenticate hidden security information using smart devices, such as a smart phone or tablet, as smart devices are prevalent, configurable, and are often carried on a person thus readily available when authentication is desired. However, several challenges limit the use of smart devices for optical detection of hidden security information. First, the camera systems in smart devices are designed to focus on faces, not hidden security information, and this is problematic if the hidden security information does not have contrast points for use in focusing. Also affecting the process is the effect of varying focal lengths on the image capture process, possibly requiring the smart device camera to be positioned at a predetermined distance and/or angle from the target in order to capture hidden security information.”; paragraph [0083], “According to some embodiments, any information in parameters 115 can be modified to customize the detection capability for security purposes. Parameters 115 include, for example, line frequency, screen angles, text/content, image structure, color, and related data.”).
With regards to claim 4, Caton et al. teaches the one or more hidden attributes include one or more of a hologram and a steganographic image (paragraph [0260], “The product codes may be printed in black ink or a color or a combination of colors or reversed out of a white or black or color image, laser engraved, hot or cold foil stamping, die-cut or applied utilizing holographic foils and/or embedded in a holographic image. Moreover, the product codes can be printed utilizing inks other than traditional, such as thermal reactive, coin reactive, UV or IR light reactive, blind emboss or ink jet holographic to add another layer of authentication.”).
With regards to claim 5, Caton et al. teaches the one or more visible attributes include added or manipulated pixels and/or imperfections in one or more of an image, logo, text, and border associated with the one or more visible attributes (paragraph [0068], “As a means of product identification and tracking, a barcode such as a Universal Product Code (UPC) or a Quick Response (QR) code is often printed on the packaging of consumer products. These printed codes are optically scanned for rapid decoding. However, barcodes are readily visible on the product packaging and are susceptible to copying, adjustment, and other forgery. To reduce fraud, it is desirable to add hidden security information to product packaging as an alternative, or in conjunction with, barcode information and/or other tracking and identification information.”).
With regards to claim 6, Caton et al. teaches the one or more visible attributes further include arbitrary noise intended to deceive a counterfeiter (paragraph [0135], “http://www.sunsetlakesoftware.com/2012/02/12/introducing-gpuimage-framework) can be used for image processing capabilities including live video stream filtering, to view the target image and adjust for pattern detection. This software may be used to apply a convolution matrix to detect horizontal or vertical lines, adjust exposure based on image brightness, adjust contrast to increase edge sharpness within the image, adjust to median settings to remove stray pixels, filter out noise based on a threshold, and perform other functionality applicable to the present disclosure.”).
With regards to claim 7, Caton et al. teaches the one or more visible attributes include a barcode or QR code configured to reference a trusted web address (paragraph [0008], “The present disclosure involves authenticating websites by providing websites with security images to be displayed as a graphic on the site. A user can then validate the site as authentic by taking a picture of the graphic and communicating with a server to determine whether the site is authentic. According to some embodiments, a website server requests an authentication graphic for each new session that is initiated.”; paragraph [0068], “As a means of product identification and tracking, a barcode such as a Universal Product Code (UPC) or a Quick Response (QR) code is often printed on the packaging of consumer products.”).
With regards to claim 8, Caton et al. teaches the one or more hidden attributes are hidden within the barcode or QR code (paragraph [0173], “According to some embodiments, the pattern of FIG. 6 or similar pattern is concealed within the hidden/covert security feature 122, using previously described security features such as Prism™, Veriglow™, and/or other security features. The pattern may be positioned such that it is adjacent to, surrounding or otherwise in close proximity to additional image and/or text information. In some embodiments, the additional image information is a one dimensional barcode (UPC), two dimensional barcode (for example, QR, data matrix, PDF417, or Aztec), or other image information. Examples of the combination of a barcode with a pattern and additional hidden text are illustrated in FIG. 9A-9D.”).
With regards to claim 9, Caton et al. teaches the scanned image is obtained by a camera of a user device associated with a consumer who has purchased the manufactured product (paragraph [0008], “A user of the website can then query the security service to validate the displayed authentication graphic by capturing an image of the graphic and communicating with the security service. For example, the user can use a camera-equipped device that is loaded with an image capture application which operates to provide focusing, filtering, and image capture capability.”).
With regards to claim 10, Caton et al. teaches receiving the scanned image is performed by a trust entity in communication with the user device (paragraph [0008], “A user of the website can then query the security service to validate the displayed authentication graphic by capturing an image of the graphic and communicating with the security service. For example, the user can use a camera-equipped device that is loaded with an image capture application which operates to provide focusing, filtering, and image capture capability.”).
With regards to claim 11, Caton et al. teaches the user device is a mobile device, and wherein receiving, extracting, and determining are performed by an app or Software Development Kit (SDK) running on the mobile device (paragraph [0007], “According to some embodiments, a smart device is equipped with a camera and a capture application which combine to provide focusing, filtering, and image capture capability. According to some embodiments, the smart device is configured to capture and preprocess images containing hidden security features, and communicate with a network-based security service for decoding and authentication of hidden security features. According to some embodiments, the smart device is configured to communicate with a decoding application, decision processor, and database on the smart device to decode and authenticate hidden security features.”).
With regards to claim 12, Caton et al. teaches the scanned image is obtained by a device associated with a distributor or retailer in a supply chain between a manufacturer of the manufactured product and a consumer of the manufactured product (paragraph [0105], “If the encoded information is associated with a particular marketing promotion, information about the marketing promotion (e.g., a reduced sale price, reward points, customer loyalty program benefits, and the like) can then be delivered to the smart device 105 for viewing by the user 175. Moreover, any marketing promotion information delivered to the smart device 105 can enable the user 175 to redeem any benefits of the specified promotions. In some examples, marketing promotions may be redeemable by the user substantially in real time, to allow the user 175 that scans the security feature 122 on product packaging in a retail store environment to take advantage of any available promotions before leaving the particular store. Thus”).
With regards to claim 14, Caton et al. teaches the logical instructions further enable the processing device to record multiple sets of coded information extracted from scanned images of multiple encoded security seals printed in association with multiple packages (paragraph [0087], “Additionally, system 100 allows for configurable security features, such that the hidden/covert security feature(s) 122 can be adjusted and/or optimized for particular customers and/or secured physical documents 120, yet multiple types of hidden/covert security features 122 can be analyzed by a smart device 105”),
wherein each set of coded information includes a non-repeatable nonce (paragraph [0241], “At block 1724, the security service 1640 can also optionally update the stored listing of authentication graphics to remove the graphic validated in block 1718. By removing the graphic from the list of valid authentication graphics after a single validation, the security service 1740 can prevent the system 1600 from being used to validate multiple websites from a single authentication graphic.”), and
wherein determining that the manufactured product is authentic includes observing that the respective non-repeatable nonce has not been previously replayed (paragraph [0241], “At block 1724, the security service 1640 can also optionally update the stored listing of authentication graphics to remove the graphic validated in block 1718. By removing the graphic from the list of valid authentication graphics after a single validation, the security service 1740 can prevent the system 1600 from being used to validate multiple websites from a single authentication graphic.”).
With regards to claim 15, Caton et al. teaches in response to determining whether the manufactured product is authentic, the logical instructions further enable the processing device to provide an indication to a consumer of the manufactured product as to whether the manufactured product is authentic or counterfeit (paragraph [0095], “Once the data relating to hidden/covert security feature 122 has been verified, decision processor 134 queries rules data 144 for information about actions to be taken. Like parameters 115, the information in rules data 144 may be subscriber-specific. In one example, rules data 144 may indicate to transmit a text message (e.g., via SMS) to the originating smart device 105. Using the example of a hidden/covert security feature 122 on a product package, wherein the hidden/covert security feature 122 indicates product information, examples of text messages include AUTHENTIC PRODUCT, NOT AUTHENTIC PRODUCT, FOR USE IN USA ONLY, or any other customized message as appropriate for a particular product package.”).
With regards to claim 16, Caton et al. teaches the print medium is one or more of a) an outer surface of the package and b) a label attached to the outer surface of the package (paragraph [0203], “In brief, the security features described herein may be rendered by printed elements on a printable substrate, by an electronic display, or by a surface geometry pattern created in a physical substrate.”).
With regards to claim 17, Caton et al. teaches the print medium is one or more of a) a piece of paper or card placed inside the package during manufacturing and b) an inside surface of the package (paragraph [0203], “In brief, the security features described herein may be rendered by printed elements on a printable substrate, by an electronic display, or by a surface geometry pattern created in a physical substrate.”
With regards to claim 18, Caton et al. teaches the set of coded information includes one or more of validity information, manufacturer information, manufacturing date, manufacturing location, product information, product serial number, product expiration date, and expiration date of a certificate associated with a manufacturer or product (paragraph [0211], “According to some embodiments, elements of this disclosure may be used to authenticate a variety of documents and related products, including but not limited to the following: protection/secondary authentication of product codes on product packaging (such as verification of destination country for pharmaceutical products), authentication of unique or expensive goods (such as signed memorabilia), control of imports/exports (such as for luxury goods commonly counterfeited), warehouse management and tracking (such as the destination information and expiration date of perishable items), authentication of important documents such as ID cards or title documents, verification of promotional materials or gaming tickets, identification of product recalls, and many other applications relying on the authentication, via a smart device, of hidden security information within a document.”).
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 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200357002 to Caton et al. as applied to claims 1-12, 14-18 and 20 above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200372441 to Ruffkess et al.
With regards to claim 13, Caton et al. fails to explicitly teach a blockchain format, but Ruffkess et al. teaches the logical instructions further enable the processing device to store one or more sets of encoded information in a blockchain format and determine authenticity of the manufactured product throughout the supply chain (paragraph [0047], “In one embodiment, and as shown in FIG. 3, the exemplary process 300 begins at step 302, where the system is configured to receive delivery verification information from a logistics provider (e.g., an email address, a delivery tracking number, an encrypted email address and delivery tracking number, a block on a blockchain, etc.) or inventory identification information (e.g., employee identifiers, item identifiers, item quantities, etc.).”).
This part of Ruffkess et al. is applicable to the system of Caton et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product authentication and security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Caton et al. to include the blockchain and RSA encryption security measures as taught by Ruffkess et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caton et al. in order to provide unalterable and traceable product authentication (see paragraphs [0013]-[0014] and [0030]-[0032] of Ruffkess et al.).
With regards to claim 19, Caton et al. fails to explicitly teach a RSA encoding, but Ruffkess et al. the set of coded information includes encrypted information using Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) cryptography (paragraph [0047], “In particular embodiments, the data received at step 302 may have been encrypted by hashing or by any other suitable method of encryption (e.g., Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA), Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), Data Encryption Standard (DES), Triple Data Encryption Standard (3DES), Twofish, Blowfish, etc.). In various embodiments, the system may receive the delivery verification information from the logistics provider/third party system via any suitable wireless communication protocol (e.g., TCP, TLS, HTTP, HTTPS, UDP, FTP, etc.). ”).
This part of Ruffkess et al. is applicable to the system of Caton et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to product authentication and security. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Caton et al. to include the blockchain and RSA encryption security measures as taught by Ruffkess et al. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Caton et al. in order to provide unalterable and traceable product authentication (see paragraphs [0013]-[0014] and [0030]-[0032] of Ruffkess et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220391926 to Chen et al. discusses a product verification system uses blockchain technologies to track the supply chain process of each instance (e.g., each copy) of a product. Upon receiving a request for authenticating an item, a code provided with the item is scanned. A token corresponding to an instance of a product is determined based on the code. The product verification system traverses a blockchain to access data associated with the token.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170032382 to Shulman et al. discusses product authentication are disclosed which employ both identification tags affixed to products and a central server to validate scanned tag codes. To verify authenticity of a product, a user may peel off a cover label from the identification tag to reveal a scannable or readable code/symbol, use a device to scan or read the code/symbol, and then transmit it to the central server for authentication. The central server determines, based on database records, whether the code/symbol is genuine and never scanned by another device before. If so, the product is deemed authentic, and a corresponding token is created and stored based on the unique combination of the code/symbol and an identifier of the device used to scan/submit the code/symbol.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210004776 to Lee discusses a physical product includes a verification code and a unique identifier disposed thereupon by which authenticity or condition of the instance may be determined. The combination may be uniquely associated with the instance and stored, by the issuer or manufacturer for each authentic instance, locally or within a decentralized computing system having an immutable data store. The verification code may be concealed by a tamper-evident component such that access of the verification code is evident upon visual inspection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080116276 to Lo discusses a label printed on a high-resolution micro optic photo chromogenic material and a camera of a mobile phone photographs the label at a close-up distance, with the lens of the camera regrouping the split image elements of all the color bars to reconstruct the product code that will be displayed on the screen of the mobile phone. The consumer can match the printed reference code on the label or the product with the product code displayed on the screen for visual identification, or the color photo of the universal product code can be sent by the mobile phone installed with a related software to an Anti-counterfeiting Control Center for computer matching and verification and the consumer will be advised of the result in a matter of seconds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Schneider whose telephone number is (571)270-7120. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571)270-3445. 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.
/J.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626