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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
A. Claims 19-21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2006/0180647) in view of CN 1030651098.
With respect to claim 19, Hansen teaches (a) applying to a surface of the product a dispersion of transponders or applying a label to which the dispersion of transponders was previously applied (para. [0345], A user may mix the paint such that the RFID chips are distributed evenly within the paint, and then paint an object such as a wall);
(b) characterizing the surface of the product or the label by moving at least one antenna towards at least one portion of the surface of the product or of the label for scanning at least one subset of the transponders to acquire for each of the transponders characterization information comprising at least a transponder ID and a transponder position with respect to a predefined reference system (para. [0347], Someone with a RFID reader may then scan the wall and the information from the RFID labels that are on the wall.", in combination with para. [0038],the end user can write an ID number to the tag"; para. [0346], The RFID writer may then be used to encode information onto the chips"; and para. [0347], an worker with an RFID writer moves the writer along the wall to change information on the RFID tags on the wall)
(c) storing in a memory unit the characterization information acquired in step (b), as a characterization information pattern of the product (para. [0347], wherein it is implicit that said RFID reader comprises a memory);
(d) after steps (b) and (c), acquiring, by scanning at least one area of said at least one portion of the surface of the product or of the label, in which at least part of the dispersion of transponders applied in step (a) is present, moving said at least one antenna towards the surface of the product, the characterization information acquired in step (b) (para [0347], wherein it is implicit that the disclosed step of scanning the wall may be repeated multiple times), thus obtaining verification information;
(e) storing the verification information obtained in step (d), relating to the product, (para. [0347], wherein it is implicit that said RFID reader comprises a memory);
in an authenticity verification pattern of the product;
(f) searching the authenticity verification pattern in the characterization information pattern, within a predefined deviation margin; and
(g) generating digital information on the authenticity of the product and optionally on the identity of the author of the product (para. [0346], " In this way, an ordinary wall may become an information bearing wall, from which information can be read by an RFID reader), as a function of a positive or negative outcome of step (f).
Hansen also teach Authentication of Expensive Items With RFID (para [0331]).
Hansen does not teach expressly that obtaining verification information by scanning at least one area of said at least one portion of the surface of the product or of the label,
storing the verification information in an authenticity verification pattern of the product;
searching the authenticity verification pattern in the characterization information pattern, within a predefined deviation margin
generating digital information on the authenticity of the product ), as a function of a positive or negative outcome.
CN 1030651098.teaces expressly that obtaining verification information by scanning at least one area of said at least one portion of the surface of the product or of the label, storing the verification information in an authenticity verification pattern of the product; searching the authenticity verification pattern in the characterization information pattern, within a predefined deviation margin, generating digital information on the authenticity of the product, as a function of a positive or negative outcome (page 3, B. storing the work attribute information of the authentic calligraphy and painting and the location information of the sampling point in the database;
Described authenticity identification of calligraphy and painting comprises the following steps:
C. Query the corresponding record in the database according to the attribute information of the calligraphy and painting to be identified, and read the position information
of the sampling points and the microscopic texture image of the authentic calligraphy and painting in the corresponding record;
D. take the microscopic texture image of the calligraphy and painting to be identified at the sampling point by the image acquisition device;
E. Compare the microscopic texture image of the calligraphy and painting to be identified with the microscopic texture image of the authentic calligraphy and painting. If
the matching is consistent, the identification is true; otherwise, it is false.
Further, in the step B, the attribute information of the authentic calligraphy and painting and the location information of the sampling points are written into an RFID tag
through an RFID reader, and the RFID tag is attached to the authentic calligraphy and painting Above; in the step C, the attribute information of the calligraphy and painting to be authenticated is read from the RFID tag on the calligraphy and painting to be authenticated by an RFID reader.)
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine authenticity verification of product using transponder (RFID) in the method of Hansen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to securely authenticate product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine CN 1030651098 with Hansen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, Hansen teaches that the characterization information further comprises a received signal intensity indication (RSSI) (para [0026] and [0032]).
With respect to claim 21, Hansen teaches that the characterization information further comprises one or more of: an electronic product code (EPC) memory, a tag identification (TID) memory, a user memory, a reading speed, a response time. (para [0347], an RFID writer is located in the room to write information to the tags).
With respect to claim 24, Hansen teaches that the product consists of a support on which a work of art is made (page 3, painting).
With respect to claim 25, Hansen teaches in step (a) the dispersion of transponders is obtained by randomly mixing a plurality of the transponders with a binding substance so that, following a drying step, the transponder position of the transponders is stable over time (para [0345]-[0346]).
With respect to claim 29, Hansen teach that in step (c) at least one part of the characterization information acquired in step (b) is compressed, encrypted and stored in a user memory of each of the transponders. (para [0352]-[0353], Security information may also be encoded)
With respect to claim 30, Hansen teach that in step (c) a digitized biometric sample proving the identity of the author of the product is stored (para [0031] ).
With respect to claim 35, CN 1030651098 teach that in step (c) at least one part of the characterization information acquired in step (b) is compressed, encrypted and stored in a user memory of each of the transponders, and wherein in step (g) at least one part of the characterization information obtained in step (b) is read from the user memory and compared with at least one part of the verification information obtained in step (d). ((page 3, E. Compare the microscopic texture image of the calligraphy and painting to be identified with the microscopic texture image of the authentic calligraphy and painting. If the matching is consistent, the identification is true; otherwise, it is false. Preferably, in the step E, the comparison between the microscopic texture image of the calligraphy and painting to be identified and the microscopic texture image of the authentic calligraphy and painting is completed by automatic texture comparison software).
With respect to claim 36, claim 36 is rejected same reason as claim 19 above.
B. Claims 23, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2006/0180647) in view of CN 1030651098 and in further view of Nagino et al. (US 2007/0290855).
With respect to claim 23, Hansen and CN 1030651098 teach all the limitations of claim 19 as applied above from which claim 23 respectively depend.
Hansen and CN 1030651098 do not teach the transponder position is calculated as an average of transponder positions detected in every antenna position for each transponder ID.
Nagino et al. teach the transponder position is calculated as an average of transponder positions detected in every antenna position for each transponder ID (para [0011], weights each of positions of the receivers 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12d by using larger weights as the number of identification information signals received by the receivers 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12d is larger. Then the server 18 calculates the center of gravity 19 so as to estimate the center of gravity 19 as a present position of the active RFID terminal 14, center of gravity is weighted average location of all the weight in an object).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine position of RFID based on position of antenna in the method of Hansen and CN 1030651098
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that using well known method to estimation precision of the active RFID is improved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nagino et al. with CN 1030651098 and Hansen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
With respect to claim 34, Nagino et al. teach that in steps (b) and (d) a plurality of antennas having known mutual positions during the performing of steps (b) and (d) is used, and wherein a mutual position of the transponders is obtained by proximity to the plurality of antennas or trilateration based on a RSSI, the mutual positions being included in the characterization information and the verification information (para [0011], weights each of positions of the receivers 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12d by using larger weights as the number of identification information signals received by the receivers 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12d is larger. Then the server 18 calculates the center of gravity 19 so as to estimate the center of gravity 19 as a present position of the active RFID terminal 14).
With respect to claim 40, claim 40 is rejected same reason as claim 23 above.
C. Claim 26 and 37 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2006/0180647) in view of CN 1030651098 and in further view of Leland et al. (US 9,872,135) and Ramalingam et al (US 9,460,513).
With respect to claim 26, Hansen and CN 1030651098 teach all the limitations of claim 19 as applied above from which claim 23 respectively depend.
Hansen and CN 1030651098 do not teach red-green-blue (RGBD) information of the product, as acquired when scanning by a camera for each scanned position of the product, is added to the characterization information and the verification information..
Leland et al. teach image information of the product, as acquired when scanning by a camera for each scanned position of the product, is added to the characterization information and the verification information (col. 4 lines 54-60, record image information associated with the location of the RFID tag to facilitate guiding the user to the RFID tag).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to record image information associated with the location of the RFID tag in the method of Hansen and CN 1030651098
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to accurately to facilitate locating a particular RFID tag.
Ramalingam et al. teach imaging in RGBD.
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to imaging in RGBD in the method of Leland et al., Hansen and CN 1030651098
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to record more detailed information about imaging location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramalingam et al. and Leland et al. with CN 1030651098 and Hansen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
With respect to claim 37, claim 37 is rejected same reason as claim 26 above.
D. Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2006/0180647) in view of CN 1030651098 and in further view of Farrel (US 2007/0247317).
With respect to claim 32, Hansen and CN 1030651098 teach all the limitations of claim 19 as applied above from which claim 30 respectively depend.
Hansen and CN 1030651098 do not teach characterization information acquired in step (b) is compressed, encrypted and stored in a user memory of each of the transponders, and wherein in step (c) the digitized biometric sample proving the identity of the author of the product is stored in the user memory.
Farrel teaches characterization information acquired in step (b) is compressed, encrypted and stored in a user memory of each of the transponders, and wherein in step (c) the digitized biometric sample proving the identity of the author of the product is stored in the user memory (para [0008]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to stored encrypted digitized biometric sample proving the identity of the author of the product is stored in the user memory in the method of Hansen and CN 1030651098.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to securely record information in RFID tag.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Farrel with CN 1030651098 and Hansen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
With respect to claim 33, Farrel teaches in the digitized biometric sample proving the identity of the author of the product comprises one of: at least one part of a digitized genetic code of the author of the product, a compressed and encrypted version thereof, a hash code of said at least one part of the digitized genetic code (para [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 22, 27, 28, 31, 38 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable of rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights