DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on August 19, 2024, is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 2-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 2-25 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 2: Claim 2, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of determining authenticity of a product based on a product identifier. In particular, the claim recites generally determining whether an item is authentic based on whether the item identifier is one of a plurality of allocated item identifiers. In other words, the claim recites Mental Processes. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
at least one processor configured to cause the system to determine whether the manufactured item is authentic based on whether the unique item identifier is one of a plurality of allocated unique item identifiers in a range of unique item identifiers generated for the batch of manufactured items;
wherein each manufactured item in the batch of manufactured items is allocated a respective unique item identifier from among the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers, and
a number of unique item identifiers in the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers is less than a total number of unique item identifiers in the range of unique item identifiers.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. However, this additional element fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas as it is used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, as noted above, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. However, this additional element fails to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas as it is used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 14: Claim 14, as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of determining authenticity of a product based on a product identifier. In particular, the claim recites generally determining whether an item is authentic based on whether the item identifier is one of a plurality of allocated item identifiers. In other words, the claim recites Mental Processes. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
at least one processor configured to cause the system to determine whether the manufactured item is authentic based on whether the unique item identifier is an allocated unique item identifier in a range of unique item identifiers generated for the batch of manufactured items,
wherein each manufactured item in the batch of manufactured items is allocated a respective unique item identifier falling within the range of unique item identifiers,
the range of unique item identifiers is defined using a lower limit identifier and an upper limit identifier of the range of unique item identifiers, and
allocated unique item identifiers within the range of unique item identifiers are defined by an indication of those unique item identifiers in the range of unique item identifiers that are not allocated to manufactured items in the batch of manufactured items.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. However, this additional element fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas as it is used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, as noted above, the claim recites the additional element of a processor. However, this additional element fails to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas as it is used to implement the abstract ideas. In other words, it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claims 3-13 and 15-20: Claims 3-13 and 15-20 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 3 and 18 recite that the items include tobacco products, which fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it generally links the use of the exception to a particular field of use.
Claims 4 and 19 recite that the items include a pack, a carton, a shipping case of smoking articles, or a pallet for shipping cases of smoking articles, which fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas is it generally links the use of the exception to a particular field of use.
Claim 5 recites that the range of identifiers have a lower limit, an upper limit, and an indication of whether they are allocated or not, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 6 and 16 recite that the indication that the identifier is not among the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers is provided by a range of unallocated unique item identifiers, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 7 and 17 recite that the range of unallocated unique item identifiers has a lower limit and an upper limit, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 8 and 20 recite that the item identifier is based on a digital signing of an identification code, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed. The additional element of the signature being digital fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it amounts to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Claims 9 and 21 recite that the signing is based on a secret derived from a plurality of secret codes, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 10 and 22 recite the item identifier includes an alphanumeric code printed on the item, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 11 and 23 recite that the alphanumeric code is a 12-digit code, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 12 and 24 recite that the item identifier includes a 2D barcode printed on the item, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claims 13 and 25 recite that the item identifier is a dot matrix printed on the item, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claim 15 recites that the number of allocated item identifiers is less than a total number of item identifiers in the range of item identifiers, which further refines the data upon which the Mental Process is performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 2, 5-12, 14-17, and 20-24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0313678 to Guenter et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0063093 to Fung et al.
Per Claim 2: Guenter discloses:
A system to determine an authenticity of a manufactured item in a batch of manufactured items, the manufactured item having a unique item identifier applied thereto, the system comprising: (see Guenter at Abstract: A system for authenticating a serialized commodity is presented.)
at least one processor configured to cause the system to determine whether the manufactured item is authentic based on whether the unique item identifier is one of a plurality of allocated unique item identifiers [[in a range of unique item identifiers generated for the batch of manufactured items;]] (see Guenter at ¶ 28: Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 206. See also ¶ 30: Authentication application 216 is a software application that a commodity owner may use to authenticate the authenticity of a serialized commodity. In other words, authentication application 216 is capable of determining whether a serialized commodity is a genuine article or a counterfeit article using identification data found on the commodity. This identification data may, for example, be one or more series of alphanumeric characters printed or impressed directly on the commodity, itself, or may be printed on a label, which is placed on the commodity. Serialized commodities may, for example, include physical products and parts, currency, bonds, stocks, checks, documents, tickets, licenses, passports, software, drugs, and raw materials. See also ¶ 74: Returning again to step 1122, if the recreated authentication code does match the received authentication code for the serialized commodity, yes output of step 1122, then the authentication application displays an authentication code match message (step 1130).)
wherein each manufactured item in the batch of manufactured items is allocated a respective unique item identifier from among the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers, and (see Guenter at ¶ 55: An authentication application, such as authentication application 216 in FIG. 2, may use an algorithm to create authentication codes 504 from combined serialized commodity identifications 502. One secure method to create authentication codes 504 is to use a two character weighted checksum. However, it should be noted that illustrative embodiments may utilize more than two characters in the weighted checksum. In addition, other secure methodologies may be used as well.)
However, Guenter fails to disclose but Fung, an analogous art of serializing items, discloses:
unique item identifiers in a range of unique item identifiers generated for the batch of manufactured items; (see Fung at ¶ 117: Each serialization schema 134 contains a range of serial numbers for a particular product (e.g. device 14).)
a number of unique item identifiers in the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers is less than a total number of unique item identifiers in the range of unique item identifiers. (see Fung at ¶ 119: If a schema 134 is exhausted (i.e. count values from the schema 134 have all been assigned), the schema with the next highest priority is then used.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guenter so that the unique product identifiers are from a range of product identifiers and not all product identifiers in the range have to be used using the techniques disclosed in Fung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement such an identification scheme to more efficiently check for whether a product is authentic.
Per Claim 14: Guentner discloses:
A system to determine an authenticity of a manufactured item in a batch of manufactured items, the manufactured item having a unique item identifier applied thereto, the system comprising: (see Guenter at Abstract: A system for authenticating a serialized commodity is presented.)
at least one processor configured to cause the system to determine whether the manufactured item is authentic based on whether the unique item identifier is an allocated unique item identifier [[in a range of unique item identifiers generated for the batch of manufactured items]], wherein (see Guenter at ¶ 28: Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 206. See also ¶ 30: Authentication application 216 is a software application that a commodity owner may use to authenticate the authenticity of a serialized commodity. In other words, authentication application 216 is capable of determining whether a serialized commodity is a genuine article or a counterfeit article using identification data found on the commodity. This identification data may, for example, be one or more series of alphanumeric characters printed or impressed directly on the commodity, itself, or may be printed on a label, which is placed on the commodity. Serialized commodities may, for example, include physical products and parts, currency, bonds, stocks, checks, documents, tickets, licenses, passports, software, drugs, and raw materials. See also ¶ 74: Returning again to step 1122, if the recreated authentication code does match the received authentication code for the serialized commodity, yes output of step 1122, then the authentication application displays an authentication code match message (step 1130).)
However, Guentner fails to disclose but Fung discloses:
allocated unique item identifier in a range of unique item identifiers generated for the batch of manufactured items (see Fung at ¶ 117: Each serialization schema 134 contains a range of serial numbers for a particular product (e.g. device 14).)
each manufactured item in the batch of manufactured items is allocated a respective unique item identifier falling within the range of unique item identifiers, (see Fung at ¶ 117: Each serialization schema 134 contains a range of serial numbers for a particular product (e.g. device 14). See also ¶ 117: The serial numbers are generated by the appliance 18, metered, and provided to the agents 20. The serial numbers are then injected sequentially into each die in a chip manufacturing process using the agent 20.)
the range of unique item identifiers is defined using a lower limit identifier and an upper limit identifier of the range of unique item identifiers, and (see Fung at ¶ 117: Each serialization schema 134 contains a range of serial numbers for a particular product (e.g. device 14).)
allocated unique item identifiers within the range of unique item identifiers are defined by an indication of those unique item identifiers in the range of unique item identifiers that are not allocated to manufactured items in the batch of manufactured items. (see Fung at ¶ 117: The controller 22 tracks how many serial numbers have been consumed for each serialization product, and makes these results available in the GUI 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guenter so that the unique product identifiers are from a range of product identifiers and not all product identifiers in the range have to be used using the techniques disclosed in Fung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement such an identification scheme to more efficiently check for whether a product is authentic.
Per Claim 5: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claim 2, from which claim 5 depends. However, Guentner fails to disclose but Fung discloses:
wherein the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers are defined in a storage device using a lower limit identifier of the range of unique item identifiers, an upper limit identifier of the range of unique item identifiers, and an indication of unique item identifiers in the range of unique item identifiers that are not among the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers. (see Fung at ¶ 117: Each serialization schema 134 contains a range of serial numbers for a particular product (e.g. device 14). See also ¶ 117: The controller 22 tracks how many serial numbers have been consumed for each serialization product, and makes these results available in the GUI 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guenter so that the unique product identifiers are from a range of product identifiers and not all product identifiers in the range have to be used using the techniques disclosed in Fung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to implement such an identification scheme to more efficiently check for whether a product is authentic.
Per Claims 6 and 16: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 5 and 14, from which claims 6 and 16 depend, respectively. However, Guentner fails to disclose but Fung discloses:
wherein the indication of unique item identifiers in the range of unique item identifiers that are not among the plurality of allocated unique item identifiers is provided by a range of unallocated unique item identifiers within the range of unique item identifiers. (see Fung at ¶ 117: The controller 22 tracks how many serial numbers have been consumed for each serialization product, and makes these results available in the GUI 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guentner so that unused identification numbers is indicated using the techniques disclosed in Fung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable a user to easily understand which identification numbers had not been used yet.
Per Claims 7 and 17: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 6 and 16, from which claims 7 and 17 depend, respectively. However, Guentner fails to disclose but Fung discloses:
wherein the range of unallocated unique item identifiers is defined by a lower limit identifier of the range of unallocated unique item identifiers and an upper limit identifier of the range of unallocated unique item identifiers. (see Fung at ¶ 117: Each serialization schema 134 contains a range of serial numbers for a particular product (e.g. device 14). See also ¶ 117: The controller 22 tracks how many serial numbers have been consumed for each serialization product, and makes these results available in the GUI 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guentner so that unused identification numbers is indicated using the techniques disclosed in Fung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable a user to easily understand which identification numbers had not been used yet.
Per Claims 8 and 20: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 14, from which claims 8 and 20 depend, respectively. Guentner further discloses:
wherein the unique item identifier is based on a digital signing of an identification code. (see Guentner at ¶ 72: Subsequently, the authentication application recreates the authentication code for the serialized commodity using the retrieved fixed ID key and the received fixed ID and serial number (step 1120).)
Per Claims 9 and 21: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 8 and 20, from which claims 9 and 21 depend, respectively. Guentner further discloses:
wherein the digital signing is based on a secret derived from a plurality of secret codes. (see Guentner at ¶ 53: In this exemplary illustration, combined fixed ID, serial number, and fixed ID key 402 includes combined serialized commodity identifications “A245671A00002543G234” and “A245671A00200043G234,” which are the combination of fixed ID 302, serial number 304, and fixed ID key 306 in FIG. 3 for each of the two listed commodities.)
Per Claims 10 and 22: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 14, from which claims 10 and 22 depend, respectively. Guentner further discloses:
wherein the unique item identifier includes an alphanumeric code printed on the manufactured item. (see Guentner at ¶ 57: Printed serialized commodity identifications with corresponding authentication codes 600 are printed on, or otherwise attached to, two different commodity items (i.e., different serial numbers) of the same commodity type (i.e., same fixed ID). It should be noted that serial number “1A000025” has a corresponding authentication code of “NQ” and serial number “1A002000” has a corresponding authentication code of “4Z” even though fixed ID 602 is the same (i.e., “A24567”) for both of the serialized commodities listed.)
Per Claims 11 and 23: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 10 and 22, from which claims 11 and 23 depend, respectively. Guentner further discloses:
wherein alphanumeric code is a 12-digit alphanumeric code printed on the manufactured item. (see Guentner at ¶ 57: Printed serialized commodity identifications with corresponding authentication codes 600 are printed on, or otherwise attached to, two different commodity items (i.e., different serial numbers) of the same commodity type (i.e., same fixed ID). It should be noted that serial number “1A000025” has a corresponding authentication code of “NQ” and serial number “1A002000” has a corresponding authentication code of “4Z” even though fixed ID 602 is the same (i.e., “A24567”) for both of the serialized commodities listed. See also ¶ 55: However, it should be noted that illustrative embodiments may utilize more than two characters in the weighted checksum.)
Per Claims 12 and 24: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 14, from which claims 12 and 24 depend, respectively. Guentner further discloses:
wherein the unique item identifier includes a 2D barcode printed on the manufactured item. (see Guentner at ¶ 60: The user may manually input data into fixed ID and serial number entry field 802 and authentication code entry field 804 by using, for example, a keyboard, or may automatically input the necessary data by using, for example, an RFID or a barcode scanner.)
Claims 3-4 and 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guentner and Fung as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,456,729 to Moore.
Per Claims 3 and 18: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 14, from which claims 3 and 18 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guentner and Fung fails to disclose but Moore, an analogous art of tobacco products, discloses:
wherein the batch of manufactured items includes tobacco products. (see Moore at 2:36-48: In the example, if only package modules comprising “cases” of multiple cartons of cigarettes were tracked, unscrupulous distributors could distribute contraband cartons of cigarettes to be sold by the carton or to be subdivided and sold by the pack. Authorities would have no means for tracking contraband cartons or packs of cigarettes. Even if the product were marked and tracked down to the carton package module, individual packs of cigarettes could be retailed illegally with no means for detection. It is, therefore, desirable to mark all package modules for tracking. In the example, this would include marking package modules down to the cigarette “pack” level.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guentner so that the items being marked are tobacco products using the techniques disclosed in Moore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to track authenticity of tobacco products.
Per Claims 4 and 19: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 18, from which claims 4 and 19 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guentner and Fung fails to disclose but Moore discloses:
wherein the batch of manufactured items includes a pack, a carton, a shipping case of smoking articles or a pallet for shipping cases of smoking articles. (see Moore at 2:36-48: In the example, if only package modules comprising “cases” of multiple cartons of cigarettes were tracked, unscrupulous distributors could distribute contraband cartons of cigarettes to be sold by the carton or to be subdivided and sold by the pack. Authorities would have no means for tracking contraband cartons or packs of cigarettes. Even if the product were marked and tracked down to the carton package module, individual packs of cigarettes could be retailed illegally with no means for detection. It is, therefore, desirable to mark all package modules for tracking. In the example, this would include marking package modules down to the cigarette “pack” level.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guentner so that the items being marked are tobacco products using the techniques disclosed in Moore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to track authenticity of tobacco products.
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guentner and Fung as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,003,612 to Millet.
Per Claims 13 and 25: The combination of Guentner and Fung discloses the subject matter of claims 2 and 14, from which claims 13 and 25 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guentner and Fung fails to disclose but Millet, an analogous art of dot matrix printing, discloses:
wherein the unique item identifier includes a data matrix printed on the manufactured item. (see Millet at 1:56-60: Method of identification of a product obtained by writing items of information; characterized in that it consists in performing the writing operation in matrix form, the dots in the matrix being isolated from each other)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guentner so that dot matrix printing is used to print the identification number on the product using the techniques disclosed in Millet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as it is simply a known alternative for printing identification information on a product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,069,955 discloses a visible seal or label containing a serial number is placed in plain view on the product packaging. The visible label contains the serial number as well as a first public key encrypted version of the serial number. A second or hidden label inside of the package has thereon a second a second encrypted version of the serial number made using a second public key. The hidden label may be secured inside of the package out of sight or may be placed on the back of the visible label and therefore viewable through a transparent case when opened or visible when peeled off. The private keys are known only to the manufacturer. Using a corresponding public key provided by the manufacturer, the consumer, law enforcement agent, or customs inspector can verify that the encrypted version matches the serial number. An advantage to this method is that only the manufacturer can produce matching pairs. Moreover, using a point of sale machine equipped with the public key the sales clerk can authenticate the product in front of the consumer at point of purchase. Additionally, in the case of a CD or other digital medium, the hidden label may comprise a digital watermark of the encrypted serial number such that a consumer, law enforcement agency, or customs inspector can readily detect a counterfeit product.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0047340 discloses a method and apparatus for insuring authenticity for consumer goods as well as products transferred to another party. In one embodiment, a record of authenticity is provided with a good at the point of manufacture. The record of authenticity includes an item code and a registration number unique to the good. An internet database stores the authenticity data. Once an article or good is purchased, the owner of the article accesses the database and is forwarded a second registration number which is different from the initial registration number provided at the point of manufacture. The owner may register as a legitimate owner of authentic goods by entering the new registration number and item code as well as other information. This information is stored in the internet database for the good in issue. The system also provides for insuring that any good transferred in title to a second party is an authentic article and also lists information for this party relative to the article.
U.S. Patent No. 6,363,483 discloses methods and systems for authenticating a unique article utilizing a generated unique data signature. The unique data signature is generated by encrypting a received data set representative of a unique identification number fixed to a substantially unforgeable document. The unique data signature is fixed to the unique article or to an optionally generated ownership certificate or the like. The unforgeable document is retained, possibly as the ownership certificate, or the like, or as a part thereof, to thereby authenticate the unique article.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights