DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to how the newly amended claim features of claims 1, 12, and 20 differ from the prior art cited in the last office have been fully considered. These arguments are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in this office action using a different secondary reference Pub No. US 20190141410 A1 (also called Zverina).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 6, is objected to because of the following informalities: “the trigger image” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (U.S. Patent US 8910274 B2) in view of Carre (U.S. Patent US 10127724 B2) in further view of Zverina (Pub No. US 20190141410 A1).
As per claim 1, Sanders teaches the claimed:
A method, comprising: scanning, by a processor, a particular quick response digital code using a device associated with a user of a plurality of users (Please see Sanders bottom of the 2nd col to the top of the 3rd col: “a mobile device may be configured by software to require a user, as a first authentication factor, to present a barcode, such as a Quick Response (QR) Code for image scanning using digital camera componentry built into the mobile device. The device analyzes the digital image of the barcode to decode the barcode into its encoded character data” . The device described in the prior art corresponds to the processor in the claimed invention.); accessing, by the processor and in response to scanning the digital code , an interface associated with the device based on a first prompt to the user (Please see Sanders col 4, lines 13-16: “a diagram depicting an exemplary graphical user interface for scanning a barcode using a mobile device implementing a multi-factor authentication scheme, consistent with certain disclosed embodiments”); performing, by the processor, an authentication step to verify identity of the user and the device, wherein the authentication step comprises a second prompt for a unique code (Please see Sanders col 4, lines 17-20: “a diagram depicting an exemplary graphical user interface for inputting a passcode using a mobile device implementing a multi-factor authentication scheme, consistent with certain disclosed embodiments”); triggering, by the processor and in response to the performing of the authentication step (Please see top of Sanders column 7: ”once successfully authenticated, device 100 may display a Home Screen 700, as depicted in FIG. 7, to enable the user to access programs, data, or functionality provided by device 100”).
Sanders alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Sanders in combination with Carre teaches the claimed:
a mixed reality tool based on the device hovering over a chosen image; and generating, by the processor, mixed reality content utilizing a particular application based on the particular digital code,
(Please see Carre 1st paragraph in column 3: “An augmented reality is provided to a user on a mobile device by scanning a quick response code or redirecting to a uniform resource identifier (URI) associated with a target in the real world. The URI (e.g., uniform resource locator (URL)) redirection is equivalent to a QR code scanning and accelerates the recognition of a real scene and facilitates the execution of an augmented reality session”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixed reality tool as taught by Carre with the system of Sanders in order to incorporate the mixed reality content utilizing a particular application based on the particular digital code on the device. Sanders teaches the method of utilizing a two-factor authentication utilizing a unique code and having the device trigger a response once the user is verified.
Sanders and Carre do not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Sanders and Carre in combination with Zverina teaches the claimed:
wherein the mixed reality content comprises a live stream event associated with a plurality of scenes (Zverina [0029] “Examples of a live stream video can include a 2D video and a 360 video, among others. In some instances, the content ad module 102 can be implemented in or as, for example, an augmented reality environment”
Please also see Zverina [0026] “A live stream video can depict various scenes and objects, such as a store and products in a store” and Zverina [0040] “In some embodiments, the code information module 210 can also recognize a store depicted in a live stream video based on codes, such as barcodes or QR codes”
In these passages, Zverina teaches that the mixed reality content comprises a live stream video that depicts various scenes. The invention that Zverina teaches also has a digital code trigger, such as a QR code).
Since Sanders, Carre, and Zverina are all from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of this application to incorporate the known technique of Zverina in order to incorporate plurality of scenes of a live stream within a mixed reality content.
As per claim 3, Sanders alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Sanders in combination with Carre teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1 wherein the mixed reality tool comprises a portable streaming service capable of providing the mixed reality content. (Please see Carre column 4 line 58 - column 5 line 2: “According to one embodiment, the present system and method associates a QR code with an augmented reality (AR) event. The present system and method scans a QR code with a camera of a mobile device, sends the information associated with the QR code to a server, and feeds data, video, and/or live streaming from the server to the mobile device. In one embodiment, the present system and method uses the URI redirection information of a QR code embedded in the application instead of scanning a QR code. The data, video and/or live streaming sent back to the mobile device augment a camera preview on the mobile device, and prompts the user to take one or more actions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the QR code trigger a video streaming feature as taught by Carre with the system of Sanders in order to create a mixed reality tool that incorporates a streaming service. Doing so would provide a plurality of products into exclusive streaming platforms looping hundreds of hours of programmable content.
As per claim 4, Sanders alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Sanders in combination with Carre teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the digital code comprises a QR code associated with a web application. (Please see Carre lines 6-9 in column 6: “According to one embodiment, after the device 101 scans the QR code 110, the device 101 makes a web request (e.g., over http, json or else) to a server if the device 101 recognizes the server in the URL.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the web application request as taught by Carre with the system of Sanders in order to have a QR code be associated with a web application because this helps the user more quickly find or load the web application (thus it is a convenience).
As per claim 5, Sanders alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Sanders in combination with Carre teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content further comprises a pre-recorded video message embedded with a trigger image (Please see Carre column 6 lines 23-33: “The application scans the QR code 110 when the QR code 110 is placed within the targeting advice area 130. The QR code 110 recognized by the server contains a URL address of a content, for example, a video clip or a streaming video. The video content returned by the server provides the user with augmented reality in the camera preview. The content associated with the QR code 110 may be, but is not limited to, an audio, a video, a movie, and an AR video. The video content may contain multiple frames, a still image or a three-dimensional (3D) content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an existing video clip as taught by Carre with the system of Sanders in order to generate a mixed reality content that comprises a pre-recorded video message that is triggered by the image scanning (QR code).
As per claim 6, Sanders alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Sanders in combination with Carre teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content further comprises a live feed video embedded with the trigger image to activate the mixed reality tool (Please see Carre column 4 line 58 - column 5 line 2: “According to one embodiment, the present system and method associates a QR code with an augmented reality (AR) event. The present system and method scans a QR code with a camera of a mobile device, sends the information associated with the QR code to a server, and feeds data, video, and/or live streaming from the server to the mobile device. In one embodiment, the present system and method uses the URI redirection information of a QR code embedded in the application instead of scanning a QR code. The data, video and/or live streaming sent back to the mobile device augment a camera preview on the mobile device, and prompts the user to take one or more actions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a live feed video feature as taught by Carre with the system of Sanders in order to create a mixed reality content that comprises a live feed video embedded with the trigger image to activate the mixed reality tool.
As per claim 12, the reasons and rationale for the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In particular, only additional features unique to claim 12 that were not present in claim 1 will be explicitly addressed here.
Sanders teaches the claimed:
A system comprising: at least one interface gateway configured to interface with at least one client device and a plurality of resource platforms, the at least one interface gateway comprising an integration orchestrator comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having software instructions stored thereon, wherein, upon execution of the software instructions, the at least one processor is configured to (Please see Sanders col 4, lines 50-67 to top of column 5: “Device 100 may additionally include, for example, one or more microprocessors 120 of varying core configurations and clock frequencies; one or more memory devices or computer-readable media 130 of varying physical dimensions and storage capacities, such as flash drives, hard drives, random access memory, etc., for storing data, such as images, files, and program instructions for execution by one or more microprocessors 120; one or more wireless transceivers 140 for communicating over wireless protocols, such as wireless Ethernet, code divisional multiple access (CDMA), time division multiple access (TDMA), etc.; one or more peripheral connections 150, such as universal serial bus (USB) connections or video interfaces […] device 100 may comprise any type of hardware componentry, including any necessary accompanying firmware or software, for performing the disclosed embodiments.”).
As per claims 14, 15, and 20, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 5, 6, and 12, respectively, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Carre and in view of Zverina and in further view of Aslitürk (WO 2021021065 A2).
As per claim 2, Sanders, Carre and Zverina alone do not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, the combination of Sanders, Carre, Zverina and Aslitürk teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content comprises:
a digital postcard, a digital sticker, and a digital magnet (Please see Aslitürk page 7 lines 18-28: “In an application method of the invention, it is realized by the use of a special code visual that allows data loading, such as QR code, barcode, NFC, Soundwave Art, augmented reality (AR). Upon the request of the specialer, a relevant product / object (invitation, postcards with different content, cards, souvenirs, magnets, stickers, textile products, photographs, photo albums, cards, advertising products, stationery products, household goods) or digital images (postcard, photo, profile pictures, pictures) are selected and video, sound recording, photo, music, link or text, are converted into personally created codes such as DataMatrix, barcode, NFC, soundwave art via mobile application/website and once placed on the product, it is scanned by a special code reading application on the smart phone and the loaded data is easily displayed by the smart phone”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use digital postcards, digital stickers, and digital magnets as taught by Aslitürk with the system of Sanders as modified by Carre in order to create a mixed reality content that comprises these digital products.
As per claim 13, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 2, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Carre and Zverina and in further view of Bjontegard (US 20140171039 A1).
As per claim 7, Sanders, Carre and Zverina alone do not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, the combination of Sanders, Carre, Zverina and Bjontegard teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content further comprises an animated isometric illustration of a business that is displayed via the mixed reality (Please see Bjontegard [0094]: “Another preferred embodiment of the presently described systems would be for business promotion and networking where a company's logo is the AR/IR target. Once recognized by a sensor, and processed, the system will bring up any of a variety of information, such as information superimposed on the logo about the business, show content, display catalog of products, introduction by the CEO, 3D-graphic animation of products and/or any aspect of the business that the business wants displayed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an animated isometric illustration as taught by Bjontegard with the system of Sanders as modified by Carre in order to generate a mixed reality content that comprises an animated illustration of a business that is displayed via the mixed reality.
As per claim 16, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 7, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Carre and Zverina and in further view of Nelson et al. (US 2024/0412588 A1) and Brown et al. (US 20230048162 A1).
As per claim 8, Sanders, Carre and Zverina alone do not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, the combination of Sanders, Carre, Zverina, Nelson, and Brown teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content further comprises a simulcast video performance embedded within a trigger image to activate the mixed reality (Nelson towards the end of [0090] “… In various such embodiments, the streamer can start a live stream and viewers can scan a suitable code such as a QR code 7010j to access the live stream. The present disclosure contemplates that the QR code can be provided to the viewers in any suitable manner and that other code formats could be employed.”. Nelson does not mention activating the mixed reality per se. However, Brown teaches that it was known to have mixed reality effects within a live stream, e.g. please see Brown in [0043] “These ads can differ in visual presentation and time length, such as but not limited to ads places on moveable or non-movable object surfaces for brand placement like virtual clothing, autos, or objects displaying brand identifiers. The advertisement may be identifiable at continuous verifiable points or strategically placed over the user's live stream in time intervals during a live broadcast or prerecorded video that is multicast, simulcast, geo-cast, or recast to a plurality participating platform … The Focus Fast Ad overlay system is designed to enhance user immersive experience within actual reality, virtual reality, or augmented reality”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate simulcasting as taught by Nelson with the system of Sanders as modified by Carre in order to access a simulcast video performance embedded within the trigger image more easily.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate mixed reality within the simulcasting as taught by Brown with the system of Sanders as modified by Carre and Nelson in order to place advertisements within the live stream, e.g. ads are overlaid on top of the live stream to produce a mixed reality display (Brown in [0043]).
As per claim 17, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 8, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Carre and Zverina and in further view of Zaslansky (US 20150287403 A1).
As per claim 9, Sanders, Carre, and Zverina alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, the combination of Sanders, Carre, Zverina and Zaslansky teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content further comprises a fantasy world that grows in complexity over time with a plurality of stickers that are added to a scene in designated locations to introduce dynamic elements to the fantasy world (Please see Zaslansky [0056]: “The system may utilize a repository of avatars and/or on-screen “stickers”, and corresponding animation frames for the set of phonemes of each avatar […] Avatars and animation frame sets may be tagged, or may be categorized by subject or tagging; for example, “animals”, “children”, “fantasy”, “movie characters”, or the like; thereby allowing users to efficiently browse or search among the available avatars, based on such tags or based on textual description or keywords that may be associated with avatars (or with other elements, such as on-screen “sticker” elements or add-ons)” and Zaslanksy [0091]: “the system may optionally comprise an Application Programming Interface (API) to allow inter-connection or integration with other applications or systems; for example, allowing animated characters to be inserted into, or overlaid on, a movie clip or a streaming movie or a movie file, Augmented Reality scenes or objects or views, images, photographs, animations, Internet websites, games or gaming consoles, or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the creation of a scene using stickers as taught by Zaslansky with the system of Sanders as modified by Carre in order to create a fantasy or virtual scene by adding stickers to create the scene. Zaslansky teaches the integration of inserting multiple stickers into an augmented reality scene. This allows the mixed reality content to have a fantasy world that grows in complexity over time by adding on stickers on the scene.
As per claim 10, Sanders, Carre, and Zverina alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, the combination of Sanders, Carre, Zverina, and Zaslansky teaches the claimed:
The method of claim 1, wherein the mixed reality content further comprises video content associated with a creator as a sticker pack (Please see Zaslansky [0056]: “The system may utilize a repository of avatars and/or on-screen “stickers”, and corresponding animation frames for the set of phonemes of each avatar […] Avatars and animation frame sets may be tagged, or may be categorized by subject or tagging; for example, “animals”, “children”, “fantasy”, “movie characters”, or the like; thereby allowing users to efficiently browse or search among the available avatars, based on such tags or based on textual description or keywords that may be associated with avatars (or with other elements, such as on-screen “sticker” elements or add-ons)” and Zaslanksy [0091]: “the system may optionally comprise an Application Programming Interface (API) to allow inter-connection or integration with other applications or systems; for example, allowing animated characters to be inserted into, or overlaid on, a movie clip or a streaming movie or a movie file, Augmented Reality scenes or objects or views, images, photographs, animations, Internet websites, games or gaming consoles, or the like” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of animated stickers to be inserted into or overlaid on, a movie clip or any animated frame as taught by Zaslansky with the system of Sanders as modified by Carre in order to have a mixed reality content that comprises a video content associated with a creator as a sticker pack. Doing so would create a more seamless introduction of the concept to a new user who desires to create a mixed reality content utilizing stickers to create a scene.
As per claims 18 and 19, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 9 and 10, respectively, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Werlberger et al. (Pub No. US 2023/0401291 A1) in further view of Milne et al. (Pub No. US 2024/0070660 A1).
As per claim 21, Sanders teaches the claimed:
A method comprising: identifying, by a processor, a digital code associated with a trigger image; determining, by the processor, user interaction with the digital code associated with the trigger image (Please see Sanders column 6, lines 20-24: “Processors 120 may then analyze the image file using standard image analysis techniques to detect the presence of a particular kind of barcode, such as a QR Code, and may then decode the barcode into binary or textual data using standard barcode decoding techniques”).
Sanders alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, the combination of Werlberger and Sanders teaches the claimed:
calculating, by the processor, a usage amount associated with the digital code based on a comparison of the digital code and an input code stored in an authentication database (Please see Werlberger in [0125] “Particularly, the asset database 30 may compare the user information comprised in the asset request to the information on usage rights comprised in the copyright data, and may grant or deny access to the digital asset based on the comparison.“
In this passage, the usage amount (usage rights) is based on comparing the access request information (i.e. digital code) with input code (copyright data));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the comparing as taught by Werlberger with the system of Sanders in order to protect the copyrights of the digital assets.
and providing, by the processor, access to mixed reality content (Please see Milne [0043]: “The gaming application may be an application that may be used to play virtual games on electronic devices such as, a computer, a mobile phone, a smart television (TV), a gaming console, smart glasses, or a virtual reality (VR)/augmented reality (AR) headset, and the like”) based on the usage amount, wherein the calculated usage amount does not exceed an abnormal usage threshold (Milne in [0050] “In an embodiment, a semi-fungible token may be associated with the tracked first virtual asset 112A on the first VR platform 110A. The semi-fungible token may correspond to a predefined number of copies of the first virtual asset 112A on the first VR platform 110A. For example, a game asset may include a digital collectible, such as, a scroll or a painting, as an in-game content that may be owned by players of a gaming application (i.e., a VR platform). A limited number of the digital collectible artifacts or assets may be created for the gaming application and auctioned or earned by the players during game-play. For example, 100 copies of the digital collectible may be created. A player may own at most N copies (e.g., 1 copy) of the digital collectible. Also, there may be a maximum of at most M players (e.g., 100 players) who may own the digital collectible concurrently”. In this passage, the limited number of the digital collectible artifacts/assets or the player limit on number of owned copies corresponds to the claimed “abnormal usage threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use threshold as taught by Milne with the system of Sanders as modified by Werlberger in order to maintain the value of the digital asset by limiting the total number of available copies. It may also help prevent one user or a small group of users from hording or controlling all of the copies of a digital asset in circulation.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciavatta (Pub No. US 20170026321A1) in view of Carre.
As per claim 22, Ciavatta teaches the claimed:
A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, a request to obtain an item, the item comprises a digital code (Ciavatta in [0082] “In further embodiments, an article or product, real or virtual, is provided, comprising a graphic code, such as for instance a QR code, generated using a method according to the embodiments described herein.” And Ciavatta in [0113] “… Furthermore, embodiments can be widely exploited in the field of entertainment to supply, display or present dynamic informative contents, text, photos, audio, videos or multimedia in general, associated for example to a determinate object, real or virtual, also including web contents, carrying a QR code generated according to the present invention.”
In order to have web contents (the item) carrying a QR code (digital code), it would have to have been received by the processor on the computer at some point in time);
registering, by the processor and in response to the obtaining of the item, user information to the digital code associated with the item (Ciavatta in [0206] “The electronic communication architecture, or apparatus, 150 also comprises, as we said, one or more user interfaces 190 to access one's account on the computer server system 160 from remote, such as personal computers, remote terminals, smartphones, tablets, phablets, notebooks, netbooks, ultrabooks or other, by which a user can register and/or authenticate himself with the service at the computer server system 160 and access the service, loading, modifying, updating or eliminating the informative, text or multimedia contents associated with the URI string encoded in the QR code, or to several URI strings, associated to several QR codes that the user manages.”); determining, by the processor, user interaction with the item via the digital code and an interface associated with a device (Ciavatta in [0206] “The electronic communication architecture, or apparatus, 150 also comprises, as we said, one or more user interfaces 190 to access one's account on the computer server system 160 from remote, such as personal computers, remote terminals, smartphones, tablets, phablets, notebooks, netbooks, ultrabooks or other, by which a user can register and/or authenticate himself with the service at the computer server system 160 and access the service, loading, modifying, updating or eliminating the informative, text or multimedia contents associated with the URI string encoded in the QR code, or to several URI strings, associated to several QR codes that the user manages.”
In this passage, the claimed “user interaction” corresponds to the” loading, modifying, updating or eliminating the informative, text or multimedia contents” associated with the QR code (digital code). Ciavatta in [0225] refers to using a touch screen or other input devices associated with a mobile device (an interface associated with a device) in order to interact with the informative, text or multimedia contents in Ciavatta in [0206]).
Ciavatta alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, the combination of Ciavatta and Carre teaches the claimed:
automatically providing, by the processor, access to mixed reality content via the interface associated with the device based on the user interaction with the digital code (As mentioned above Ciavatta in [0206] teaches of providing multimedia access content via the interface based on the user interaction with the digital code (QR code). However, Ciavatta does not mention “mixed reality content” per se. Carre teaches that this was known in the art, e.g. please see Carre 1st paragraph in column 3: “An augmented reality is provided to a user on a mobile device by scanning a quick response code or redirecting to a uniform resource identifier (URI) associated with a target in the real world. The URI (e.g., uniform resource locator (URL)) redirection is equivalent to a QR code scanning and accelerates the recognition of a real scene and facilitates the execution of an augmented reality session”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixed reality tool as taught by Carre with the system of Ciavatta in order to incorporate the mixed reality content utilizing a particular application based on the particular digital code associated with the item.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon et al. (Pub No. US 2025/0258895 A1) in view of Carre.
As per claim 23, Andon teaches the claimed:
A device comprising: at least one processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having software instructions stored thereon, wherein, upon execution of the software instructions (Please see Andon in [0110]), the at least one processor is configured to:
identify a digital code associated with a physical item (Andon in [0041] “… As a first example, upon scanning the shoe's UPC or UPID at a point-of-sale (POS) terminal during first purchase or directly associated with the product, a unique crypto-token and corresponding private key (“KickID”) are automatically generated and assigned to the user's blockchain locker (see FIG. 7)”
In this passage, the shoe corresponds to the claimed “physical item” and the private key (“KickID”) corresponds to the claimed “digital code”);
request access to data associated with the digital code via the physical item (Andon in [0041] “… As a first example, upon scanning the shoe's UPC or UPID at a point-of-sale (POS) terminal during first purchase or directly associated with the product, a unique crypto-token and corresponding private key (“KickID”) are automatically generated and assigned to the user's blockchain locker (see FIG. 7)”. Also, please see figure 7 where the data shown in image 204 is accessed using the blockchain locker);
determine metadata associated with a user attempting to access the data associated with the digital code via the physical item and verify the metadata associated with the user via a multi-factor authentication module (Please see Andon towards the end of [0093] “… In an extension of this concept, the transfer of the digital asset 202 may be further secured using a PIN, cryptographic key, access code, or the like that may be provided, for example, on a receipt following the user's purchase of the product 200.”
In this passage, the further securing of the PIN or access code (i.e. metadata) corresponds to the claimed “multi-factor authentication module”. For example, authentication requires both scanning the QR code by purchasing the shoe and providing a PIN or access code).,
Andon alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, the combination of Andon and Carre teaches the claimed:
the multi-factor authentication module comprising a mixed reality tool (As mentioned above Andon in figure 7 and towards the end of [0093] mentions using the user’s phone as a multi-factor authentication module. Carre teaches that it was known to use a phone also a mixed reality tool, e.g. please see Carre in the title and in [0023]).; and manipulate the data associated with the digital code via the physical item in response to a verification of the metadata (Andon in figure 7 manipulates the data by displaying it on the screen and adding the label “Got ‘Em” next to the data associated with the digital code via the physical item (the physical shoe)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixed reality tool as taught by Carre with the system of Andon in order to incorporate the mixed reality content utilizing a particular application based on the particular digital code on the device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH Y. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8374. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
SARAH Y. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights