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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed1/2/2026. Claims 1, 4-6, 14 and 21 were amended. Claim 10 and 17 is cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11-16 and 18-23 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to Claim Objection: Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to claim 4 have been fully considered and objection has been withdrawn.
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to claims 1-9, 11-16 and 18-23 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “wherein the unique digital identifier is encodable and transmittable to a computer system configured to record and track chain of title of the object. The method/system/kit claims of claims 5, 6, 14, and 21 add further features requiring components and process steps for implementing the above-referenced features. As can be appreciated, the claims provide a means to authenticate an object and track chain of custody of that object via a computer system in a way that is not only efficient but is otherwise unachievable in such a secure manner. (See Applicant's published application, [0004]-[0005]). The claimed limitations are explicitly tied to improved/enhanced operability of a system - the processing steps prescribed by the claims facilitate improved operability of any system designed to authenticate and track chain of custody of an object. Authentication and chain of custody systems do exist, but these are for electronic assets such as securitized assets. Such assets are designed to be recorded, tracked, and authenticated so systems for authenticating and tracking chain of custody of them is quite axiomatic. No system exists for the type of objects contemplated by Applicant's claims - objects that are not inherently designed to be recorded, tracked and authenticated. The claims are clearly directed to a specifically design authentication system, and at the very least integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, even when the claims are misconstrued as being directed to an abstract idea, any abstract idea encompassed by the claims is integrated into a practical”, (see remarks , pg. 9-10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for object authentication and tracking, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as an individual can utilize a database to authenticate an object by reviewing and comparing identification correlated to the object. The computing elements such as “tag, digital identifier, blockchain, computer system in claim 1; tag, digital identifier, blockchain and database in claim 5; processor, authentication module, interfacing module, database, memory, object token, GUI, computer, digital identifier, blockchain of claim 6; token, database, computer, GUI, digital identifier, blockchain of claim 14; token, database, GUI, computer, digital identifier, blockchain of claim 21” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 1/2/2026 are moot in light of the newly cited Randhawa and Chamandy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for authenticating an object..
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 5-6, 14 and 21 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “kit for authenticating an object, the kit comprising: a [...] including a uniquely serialized number; and a unique downloadable certificate of authority; wherein the [...] is non-removably attached to the object and comprises cloth or embroidery” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (tag, digital identifier, blockchain, computer system in claim 1; tag, digital identifier, blockchain and database in claim 5; processor, authentication module, interfacing module, database, memory, object token, GUI, computer, digital identifier, blockchain of claim 6; token, database, computer, GUI, digital identifier, blockchain of claim 14; token, database, GUI, computer, digital identifier, blockchain of claim 21) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-9, 11-16 and 18-23 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (tag in claim 1; tag and database in claim 5; processor, authentication module, interfacing module, database, memory, object token, GUI, computer of claim 6; token, database, computer, GUI of claim 14; token, database, GUI, computer of claim 21) are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18-20 and 22-23 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the tag in claim 2-4, 13, 20; processor in claim 8; interfacing module in claim 8; memory in claim 9 and 16; object token in claims 7, 15 and 22; computer of claim 9, 16; digital form in claims 9 and 16; nonfungible digital identifier, unique barcode, serial number, hologram, encrypted data structure, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 6, 8-9, 11, 14, 16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huxham et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150254677 - hereinafter Hux) in view of Randhawa et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250069095 - hereinafter Randhawa) in view of Chamandy et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200184301 - hereinafter Chamandy).
Re. claim 6, Hux discloses:
A system for authenticating an object and/or a characteristic of the object, the system comprising:
a processor including an authentication module and an interfacing module; [Hux; ¶226 and ¶212].
a database; [Hux; ¶32-¶35].
a memory operatively associated with the processor, the memory having instructions stored thereon that when executed by the processor: [Hux; ¶101-¶103].
cause the authentication module to generate an object token, the object token including an identifier and associated information related to an object or a characteristic of the object; [Hux; ¶9 and ¶14 shows tag (token) with a unique identifier and one form of associated information in this section is the variable encryption keys].
cause the authentication module to transmit the object token to the database for storage in the database; [Hux; ¶9-¶14].
cause the interfacing module to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) for display at a user-computer, the GUI configured to allow a user to enter the identifier; and [Hux; ¶212 shows the entering of identifier by a user. While ¶201, ¶210, ¶214 shows elements communicated for display to the user].
cause the interfacing module to transmit the identifier to the authentication module, wherein the authentication module is configured to retrieve the object token associated with the identifier from the database and cause the interfacing module to display the associated information related to the object or the characteristic of the object. [Hux; ¶9-¶14, ¶201 and ¶210-¶214].
Hux doesn’t teach, Randhawa teaches:
[…] object token including unique digital identifier recorded on a blockchain […]; [Randhawa; ¶63].
[…] the associated information including a record of chain of title of the object; [Randhawa; ¶63 shown by smart contract which records the events such as “upon scanning the tag affixed to the product, retrieving identification information for the product from an address associated with the tag, the identification information comprising an encrypted first chain identifier; identifying an address on a blockchain for a smart contract for authenticating the product; retrieving, from a genesis record associated with the batch production, stored on the blockchain, a batch creation time for the product; transmitting to the smart contract, a first decryption key fragment, a product key and an offset value to decrypt the smart contract to obtain a second decryption key fragment for the encrypted first chain identifier; decrypting the encrypted first chain identifier using the first decryption key fragment and the second decryption key fragment; and determining an authenticity of the product based on a comparison of a batch creation time included in the decrypted first chain identifier and the batch creation time included in the genesis record”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Randhawa in the system of Hux, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hux doesn’t teach, Chamandy teaches:
[…] object token being in a form of a heat seal patch applied to the object; [Chamandy; ¶14 shows heat transfer labels that maybe used].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Chamandy in the system of Hux, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 8, Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy teach system of claim 6.
Hux teaches:
wherein the instructions when executed by the processor: cause the interfacing module to generate a certificate of authenticity authenticating the object and/or the characteristic of the object. [Hux; ¶114 shows certification module with encryptions for objects transferred].
Re. claim 9, Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy teach system of claim 8.
Hux teaches:
wherein: the certificate of authenticity is in digital form configured to be stored in memory of the user-computer; and/or the certificate of authenticity is a prompt to facilitate printing the certificate of authenticity via the user-computer. [Hux; ¶114, then ¶114-¶117 shows encryptions (digital form) stored in memory for the objects].
Re. claim 11, Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy teach system of claim 6.
Hux teaches:
wherein: the object is an item; and the characteristic of the object includes a type of the object, a sports team associated with the object, a sports player associated with the object, a locker associated with the object, an event associated with the object, and/or a place, date, and time associated with the object. [Hux; ¶85].
Re. claim 14,
Kit of claim 14 substantially mirrors the system of claim 6.
Re. claim 16,
Kit of claim 16 substantially mirrors the system of claim 9.
Re. claim 18,
Kit of claim 18 substantially mirrors the system of claim 11.
Re. claim 21,
Kit of claim 21 substantially mirrors the system of claim 6.
Claims 7, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy in view of O’Neill et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20110303744 - hereinafter O).
Re. claim 7, Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy teaches system of claim 6.
Hux doesn’t teach, O teaches:
wherein: the object is an object set that includes one or more objects; the object token pertains to all objects within the object set or each object in the object set has an individual object token. [O; ¶17 shows set of objects with one or more tags].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by O in the system of Hux, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 15,
Kit of claim 15 substantially mirrors the system of claim 7.
Re. claim 22,
Method of claim 22 substantially mirrors the system of claim 7.
Claims 12-13, 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy in view of Nagao et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240211847 - hereinafter Nagao).
Re. claim 12, Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy teaches system of claim 6.
Hux doesn’t teach, Nagao teaches:
wherein: the object includes one or more of sports clothing, sports memorabilia, and sports equipment. [Nagao; ¶53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Nagao in the system of Hux, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 13, Hux in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy in view of Nagao teaches system of claim 12.
Hux teaches:
further comprising: at least one artifact configured for attachment to the object, the at least one artifact comprising a tag, a hang tag and a hanger tag. [Hux; ¶85 and ¶119 shows a tag attached to a product].
Re. claim 19,
Kit of claim 19 substantially mirrors the system of claim 12.
Re. claim 20,
Kit of claim 20 substantially mirrors the system of claim 13.
Re. claim 23,
Method of claim 23 substantially mirrors the system of claim 13.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagao in view of Frazier et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20090198689 - hereinafter Frazier) in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy.
Re. claim 1, Nagao teaches:
A kit for authenticating an object, the kit comprising:
a tag including a uniquely serialized number; and [Nagao; Abstract and ¶33-¶47 shows tags including unique identification numbers].
wherein the tag is non-removably attached to the object and comprises cloth or embroidery. [Nagao; ¶53].
Nagao doesn’t teach, Frazier teaches:
a unique downloadable certificate of authority; [Frazier; ¶62 shows downloading and authenticating a certificate].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Frazier in the system of Nagao, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hux doesn’t teach, Randhawa teaches:
[…] object token including unique digital identifier recorded on a blockchain […]; [Randhawa; ¶63].
[…] the associated information including a record of chain of title of the object; [Randhawa; ¶63 shown by smart contract which records the events such as “upon scanning the tag affixed to the product, retrieving identification information for the product from an address associated with the tag, the identification information comprising an encrypted first chain identifier; identifying an address on a blockchain for a smart contract for authenticating the product; retrieving, from a genesis record associated with the batch production, stored on the blockchain, a batch creation time for the product; transmitting to the smart contract, a first decryption key fragment, a product key and an offset value to decrypt the smart contract to obtain a second decryption key fragment for the encrypted first chain identifier; decrypting the encrypted first chain identifier using the first decryption key fragment and the second decryption key fragment; and determining an authenticity of the product based on a comparison of a batch creation time included in the decrypted first chain identifier and the batch creation time included in the genesis record”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Randhawa in the system of Hux, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Hux doesn’t teach, Chamandy teaches:
[…] object token being in a form of a heat seal patch applied to the object; [Chamandy; ¶14 shows heat transfer labels that maybe used].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Chamandy in the system of Hux, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Nagao in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy in view of Frazier teaches kit of claim 1.
Nagao teaches:
wherein the tag additionally comprises an RFID tag. [Nagao; ¶5].
Re. claim 3, Nagao in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy in view of Frazier teaches kit of claim 1.
Nagao teaches:
additionally comprising a unique hanger, hanger tag and hang tag. [Nagao; ¶52-¶53 and element 102 in figures shows a hanging type tag that is used for merchandise/products].
Re. claim 4, Nagao in view of Randhawa in view of Chamandy in view of Frazier teaches kit of claim 1.
Nagao teaches:
wherein the identifying hanger tag also includes the uniquely serialized number. [Nagao; ¶52-¶53].
Re. claim 5,
Method of claim 5 substantially mirrors the Kit of claim 1.
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 IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628