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
This Office action is in response to correspondence received April 11, 2025.
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on April 11, 2025. Claim 1 is amended and claims 2-20 are newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant states on page 1 that the benefit of US Provisional 63/681, 318 is for August 9, 2014 when it is August 9, 2024.
In par 039 Applicant states the secure private data center is item number 620 when it is 602.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-8, 12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s original disclosure had one claim. Applicant, in a preliminary amendment after the filing date, added claims 2-20. Therefore all the support must be found from the original disclosure.
Claims 5 and 12 recite generating a profile associated with each item but there is no profile described in the original disclosure, likewise with claim 13.
Claim 6 recites a secure private data server but there is no disclosure of this. There is a secure private data center which is not necessarily a server. Likewise with claim 14.
Claim 7 recites the worm drive is configured to: store NFT data; compare an image of the indicium to stored NFT data; detect creation of a duplicate indicium; and prevent linkage of the duplicate indicium to the information source. There needs to be support for each of these limitations and while there may be support for the first two limitations (store and compare), there is not support for the third or fourth.
Claim 16 recites: comprising presenting, to the user, an outline corresponding to the item associated with the QR code portion of the indicium. There is no support for this in the original disclosure.
Claim 17 describes steps but the steps are not shown in the disclosure.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for being dependent on claim 16.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for being dependent on claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the associated profile.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The scope is unclear because it is unclear if claim 14 means to introduce the associated profile, if claim 14 was supposed to be dependent on claim 13, or if the associated profile is an element in claim 10.
Therefore, claims 5-8, 12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 recites a system that has no structure, only elements which could be under a broadest reasonable interpretation transitory signals. See MPEP 2106.03, In re Nuijten. There are no elements of structure and all of these limitations can be represented by code, which can be carried by a transitory signal. Likewise with claims 2-5.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
improved authenticity protection of items sold to consumers comprising an indicium comprising a code and nested with an image, wherein the indicium is associated with the item, wherein the indicium is linked to an information source that includes the provenance of the item.
Claim 10:
A method for improving authenticity protection of an item sold to consumers comprising: generating an indicium comprising a code nested with an image; associating the indicium with the item; and linking the indicium to an information source that includes the provenance of the item.
The claimed steps are a certain method of organizing human activities because they are commercial activities, using information to show provenance. A code is placed in an image, indicium is associated with an item, and the item is linked to a source of information that includes the provenance of the item. This is a commercial activity because it assures that an item is what it says it is by using information. Therefore this is a certain method of organizing human activity that is a commercial activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are for claim 1 a system and a QR code nested with an NFT, and for claim 10, a QR code nested with an NFT. This combination is an apply it limitation because the broadest reasonable interpretation of reciting “comprising a QR code nested with an NFT” is that it is used in its ordinary capacity, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Therefore, it is an applied limitation to the abstract idea of using indicium to indicate provenance and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, for the same reasons in the practical application section above, the claims do not recite significantly more. The reasoning is carried over. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per the dependent claims,
Claims 2-9 are further apply it limitations because they describe elements and desired functional results, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) but no details as to how the results are achieved. Therefore, they do not recite a practical application or significantly more. See claim 3, the QR code is “embedded” in the NFT “such that” a result happens. How the result happens is unrecited. The rest of the claims are similar, or further describe the abstract idea, such as claim 5 which details information.
Likewise claims 11-20 similarly further describe the abstract idea or recite elements used in their ordinary capacity , see claim 12, and do not recite a practical application or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigold et al., US PGPUB 20250069094 A1 (“Weigold”) in view of Taitern, “How to Create AT-Generated Hidden QR Codes in Images on Web,” [online] Medium.com, June 18, 2023, available at: < https://taitern.medium.com/how-to-create-ai-generated-hidden-qr-codes-in-images-on-web-bro-232995a2dee1 > (“Taitern”).
Per claims 1 and 10, which are similar in scope, Weigold teaches a system for improved authenticity protection of items sold to consumers comprising an indicium comprising a QR code [linked to an NFT] in pars 031-036: “In a first embodiment of the present invention, an overview schematic incorporating both (1) the NFT minting process and (2) the NFT verification process, using the Hashed QR method with three different graphical square QR codes, laser engraving and optical scanning techniques, is detailed in FIG. 3. More specifically in this first embodiment, the system and method of the present invention includes eight sub-processes or steps, referred to as steps 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g) and 1(h) below, to fully execute the initial “one-off” NFT creating or minting process, using the described apparatus or device for implementation as follows: (1) Creation or minting of an NFT linked to a unique physical item, using an integrated hardware and software device (referred to as a LaserMinter device), that executes the following steps: a) Creates a graphical 2D square information code or QR code called QR1 for the physical environment format. b) Laser engraves the QR1 code onto the physical asset or item (or attachable label). c) Creates a second different graphical information code or QR code called QR2 for the digital environment format. d) Stores the digital file for the QR2 code online using a cloud storage provider, preferably on a decentralized file storage platform for improved data security”
Weigold then teaches wherein the indicium is associated with the item in par 037: “Creates or mints a new NFT digital identifier using an appropriate blockchain network protocol and its linkage to the QR2 code via incorporation into the NFT smart contract of the metadata, internet address or URL for the QR2 code that is stored online as per step (1e).”
Weigold then teaches wherein the indicium is linked to an information source that includes the provenance of the item in par 038: “f) Creates a third different graphical information code or QR code called QR3 by applying either a standard or proprietary mathematical hash transformation, such as an irreversible hash algorithm that combines the data from QR1 and QR2 to produce a new unique combination QR code or proprietary data code QR3 for that specific NFT, that will be used in future for the verification of ownership of both the NFT and physical item via process (2) below.”
Though Weigold teaches that QR codes and NFTs are linked, which arguably teaches that they, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are nested, Examiner will show an obvious combination with Weigold for a QR code nested with an NFT.
Weigold does not arguably teach QR code nested with an NFT.
Taitern teaches creating QR codes nested with an NFT. See pages 1-3.
Taitern teaches QR code nested with an NFT on pages 3 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR NFT provenance teaching of Weigold with the QR code nested with an NFT teaching of Taitern because one would be motivated to create unique images so as to visually represent an item as well as have the QR code link to the information about the item. The NFT itself—an image—is a symbolic representation and one would be motivated to communicate more effectively that the QR code and the image are linked, which is effectively done by combining the two images (NFT and QR). For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Taitern.
Per claim 2, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Weigold does not teach the QR code and/or NFT are generated by an artificial intelligence-enabled program.
Taitern teaches the QR code and/or NFT are generated by an artificial intelligence-enabled program on page 4, “QR Code AI Art Generator” and the representative picture below.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR NFT provenance teaching of Weigold with the QR code nested with an NFT teaching of Taitern because one would be motivated to create unique images so as to visually represent an item as well as have the QR code link to the information about the item. The NFT itself—an image—is a symbolic representation and one would be motivated to communicate more effectively that the QR code and the image are linked, which is effectively done by combining the two images (NFT and QR). For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Taitern.
Per claim 3, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Weigold does not teach the QR code is embedded in the NFT such that one or more elements of the QR code are masked by the NFT.
Taitern teaches the QR code is embedded in the NFT such that one or more elements of the QR code are masked by the NFT on page 4, “QR Code AI Art Generator” and the representative picture where some of the QR code is hidden, or masked, behind the picture.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR NFT provenance teaching of Weigold with the QR code nested with an NFT teaching of Taitern because one would be motivated to create unique images so as to visually represent an item as well as have the QR code link to the information about the item. The NFT itself—an image—is a symbolic representation and one would be motivated to communicate more effectively that the QR code and the image are linked, which is effectively done by combining the two images (NFT and QR). For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Taitern.
Per claim 4, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 3, above. Weigold does not teach wherein the QR code is embedded in the NFT using an embedding algorithm.
Taitern teaches wherein the QR code is embedded in the NFT using an embedding algorithm on page 4, “QR Code AI Art Generator” teaches an embedding algorithm using AI to generate the QR – NFT.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR NFT provenance teaching of Weigold with the QR code nested with an NFT teaching of Taitern because one would be motivated to create unique images so as to visually represent an item as well as have the QR code link to the information about the item. The NFT itself—an image—is a symbolic representation and one would be motivated to communicate more effectively that the QR code and the image are linked, which is effectively done by combining the two images (NFT and QR). For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Taitern.
Per claim 5, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Weigold further teaches the information source further comprises a profile associated with each item, wherein the profile includes one or more of item images, item information, distributor information, and store information where item information is taught by metadata in par 036-037: “d) Stores the digital file for the QR2 code online using a cloud storage provider, preferably on a decentralized file storage platform for improved data security. e) Creates or mints a new NFT digital identifier using an appropriate blockchain network protocol and its linkage to the QR2 code via incorporation into the NFT smart contract of the metadata, internet address or URL for the QR2 code that is stored online as per step.”
Per claim 11, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 10, above. Weigold further teaches generating an NFT; generating a QR code in pars 031-036: “In a first embodiment of the present invention, an overview schematic incorporating both (1) the NFT minting process and (2) the NFT verification process, using the Hashed QR method with three different graphical square QR codes, laser engraving and optical scanning techniques, is detailed in FIG. 3. More specifically in this first embodiment, the system and method of the present invention includes eight sub-processes or steps, referred to as steps 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g) and 1(h) below, to fully execute the initial “one-off” NFT creating or minting process, using the described apparatus or device for implementation as follows: (1) Creation or minting of an NFT linked to a unique physical item, using an integrated hardware and software device (referred to as a LaserMinter device), that executes the following steps: a) Creates a graphical 2D square information code or QR code called QR1 for the physical environment format. b) Laser engraves the QR1 code onto the physical asset or item (or attachable label). c) Creates a second different graphical information code or QR code called QR2 for the digital environment format. d) Stores the digital file for the QR2 code online using a cloud storage provider, preferably on a decentralized file storage platform for improved data security”
Weigold does not teach and embedding the NFT with a QR code such that one or more elements of the QR code are masked by the NFT.
Taitern teaches and embedding the NFT with a QR code such that one or more elements of the QR code are masked by the NFT on page 4, “QR Code AI Art Generator” and the representative picture where some of the QR code is hidden, or masked, behind the picture.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR NFT provenance teaching of Weigold with the QR code nested with an NFT teaching of Taitern because one would be motivated to create unique images so as to visually represent an item as well as have the QR code link to the information about the item. The NFT itself—an image—is a symbolic representation and one would be motivated to communicate more effectively that the QR code and the image are linked, which is effectively done by combining the two images (NFT and QR). For these reasons, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Taitern.
Per claim 12, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 10, above. Weigold further teaches associating the indicium with the item comprises: sending the indicium to a manufacturer and/or distributor in a public cloud in pars 035-036: Creates a second different graphical information code or QR code called QR2 for the digital environment format. d) Stores the digital file for the QR2 code online using a cloud storage provider, preferably on a decentralized file storage platform for improved data security.”
Weigold then teaches generating a profile associated with each item in par 037: “Creates or mints a new NFT digital identifier using an appropriate blockchain network protocol and its linkage to the QR2 code via incorporation into the NFT smart contract of the metadata, internet address or URL for the QR2 code that is stored online as per step (1e).”
Weigold then teaches and affixing the indicium to the item in par 034: “Laser engraves the QR1 code onto the physical asset or item (or attachable label).”
Per claim 13, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 12, above. Weigold further teaches the information source further comprises a profile associated with each item, wherein the profile includes one or more of item images, item information, distributor information, and store information where item information is taught by metadata in par 036-037: “d) Stores the digital file for the QR2 code online using a cloud storage provider, preferably on a decentralized file storage platform for improved data security. e) Creates or mints a new NFT digital identifier using an appropriate blockchain network protocol and its linkage to the QR2 code via incorporation into the NFT smart contract of the metadata, internet address or URL for the QR2 code that is stored online as per step.”
Per claim 15, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 10, above. Weigold further teaches comprising receiving a request in response to a user using a QR code reader to read the QR code portion of the indicium in Figure 3 where the QR code is read by a device.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigold et al., US PGPUB 20250069094 A1 (“Weigold”) in view of Taitern, “How to Create AT-Generated Hidden QR Codes in Images on Web,” [online] Medium.com, June 18, 2023, available at: < https://taitern.medium.com/how-to-create-ai-generated-hidden-qr-codes-in-images-on-web-bro-232995a2dee1 > (“Taitern”), further in view of Ren et al., US PGPUB 20200334687 A1 (“Ren”).
Per claim 6, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Weigold further teaches comprising a public cloud and secured private data server, wherein the public cloud hosts indicium generation and profile generation, in par 052: “In terms of the online cloud storage platform used to store the digital QR code (referred to as QR2 in FIG. 3 and as AN1 in FIG. 4) that is linked to the NFT and used in steps 1(d) and 2(b) above, preferred embodiments may utilize a decentralized cloud storage architecture instead of a centralized cloud storage architecture that is often used in prior art. The use of a decentralized cloud storage platform to store the digital QR code may dramatically improve the level of data security. Examples of suitable commercially available decentralized cloud storage products for this purpose include IPFS, Filecoin, Storj, Sia and Cryptyk cloud storage platforms.”
Weigold does not teach and wherein the secured private data server hosts a company selector API server, a customer front end, a client front end, and a worm drive. Ren teaches a system for providing fraud trend detection. See abstract.
Ren teaches and wherein the secured private data server hosts a company selector API server, in par 071: “The system 1000 also includes one or more server(s) 1030. Thus, system 1000 can correspond to a two-tier client server model or a multi-tier model (e.g., client, middle tier server, data server), amongst other models” The server is taught as hosting the steps described herein so this teaches company selector API server such as in par 042. The secure server is taught in par 061 where it is encrypted.
Ren then teaches a customer front end, a client front end, is taught in par 035: “The one or more computing devices 304.sub.1-N can be one or more client devices, one or more user devices, one or more electronic devices one or more mobile devices, one or more smart devices, one or more smart phones, one or more tablet devices, one or more handheld devices, one or more portable computing devices, one or more wearable devices, one or more computers, one or more desktop computers, one or more laptop computers, and/or one or more other types of electronic devices associated with a display.”
Ren then teaches and a worm drive in par 066: “The disk storage 924 also can include storage media separately or in combination with other storage media including, but not limited to, an optical disk drive such as a compact disk ROM device (CD-ROM), CD recordable drive (CD-R Drive)”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR and NFT for fraud prevention teaching of Weigold with the server, front end, and worm drive teaching of Ren because one ordinarily skilled would be familiar with Ren and Ren’s teachings would further facilitate both security and access, by user and client devices and a drive like a CD-R that cannot be rewritten, as well as encrypted servers, which further ensure security. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Ren.
Per claim 14, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 10, above. Weigold does not teach linking the indicium to an information source comprises sending the indicium and the associated profile to a secured private data server for storage.
Ren teaches linking the indicium to an information source comprises sending the indicium and the associated profile to a secured private data server for storage in par 037 where the fraud mitigation solution teaches indicium and associated profile (note that Weigold teaches these elements above): “The data channel 404 can be associated with one or more tunneling protocols. For example, data can be transmitted between the server 302 and the decision engine 402 via one or more tunneling protocols that secure transmission of the data. In an embodiment, the data channel 404 can be a remotely addressable communication channel. Furthermore, in an aspect, the data channel 404 can be a data channel that converts data (e.g., the transaction data 114) from an offline data table associated with the server 302 to an online computing environment associated with the decision engine 402. In certain embodiments, the data channel 404 can facilitate risk analytics associated with the transaction data 114. In certain embodiments, a set of data tables associated with persistent memory and/or data compression for the transaction data 114 can be access by the data channel 404. The decision engine 402 can receive the fraud mitigation solution 116, for example, via the data channel 404. In an embodiment, the decision engine 402 can be a server that executes the fraud mitigation solution 116.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR and NFT for fraud prevention teaching of Weigold with the server teaching of Ren because one ordinarily skilled would be familiar with Ren and Ren’s teachings would further facilitate both security and access, by user and client devices and a drive like a CD-R that cannot be rewritten, as well as encrypted servers, which further ensure security. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Ren.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigold et al., US PGPUB 20250069094 A1 (“Weigold”) in view of Taitern, “How to Create AT-Generated Hidden QR Codes in Images on Web,” [online] Medium.com, June 18, 2023, available at: < https://taitern.medium.com/how-to-create-ai-generated-hidden-qr-codes-in-images-on-web-bro-232995a2dee1 > (“Taitern”), further in view of Ren et al., US PGPUB 20200334687 A1 (“Ren”), further in view of Suk, US PGPUB 20230145439 A1 (“Suk”).
Per claim 7, Weigold, Taitern, and Ren teach the limitations of claim 6, above. Weigold does not teach the worm drive.
Ren then teaches the worm drive in par 066: “The disk storage 924 also can include storage media separately or in combination with other storage media including, but not limited to, an optical disk drive such as a compact disk ROM device (CD-ROM), CD recordable drive (CD-R Drive)”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR and NFT for fraud prevention teaching of Weigold with the server, front end, and worm drive teaching of Ren because one ordinarily skilled would be familiar with Ren and Ren’s teachings would further facilitate both security and access, by user and client devices and a drive like a CD-R that cannot be rewritten, as well as encrypted servers, which further ensure security. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Ren.
Weigold does not teach store NFT data; compare an image of the indicium to stored NFT data; detect creation of a duplicate indicium; and prevent linkage of the duplicate indicium to the information source.
Suk teaches authentication using a decentralized identifier and an NFT. See abstract.
Suk teaches store NFT data in par 027: “In addition, the authentication service providing server 300 may be a server that receives a request to authenticate a genuine product (authentic product) of a product from the user terminal 100, confirms whether a product is genuine from at least one certified authority server 500, packs authentication information in an NFT in the authentication management company server 600 and issues the NFT later to enable DID authentication, and registers the issued NFT in the block chain along with a public key. “ Suk then teaches compare an image of the indicium to stored NFT data detect creation of a duplicate indicium in par 027: “In addition, the authentication service providing server 300 may be a server that receives a request to authenticate a genuine product (authentic product) of a product from the user terminal 100, confirms whether a product is genuine from at least one certified authority server 500, packs authentication information in an NFT in the authentication management company server 600 and issues the NFT later to enable DID authentication, and registers the issued NFT in the block chain along with a public key.” See where a photograph is used in same paragraph. Suk then teaches and prevent linkage of the duplicate indicium to the information source in par 080: “Referring to FIGS. 3, 4, and 5, the public institution server 500 evaluates a product requested for evaluation as to whether a product is genuine (S4100), and transmits the genuine product information to the genuine product authentication management company 600 only when the product is genuine by confirming whether the product is genuine (S4200). In this case, when the product is not a genuine product, that is, is determined as a counterfeit or a fake, the public institution server 500 may help dissipate counterfeits within a market ecosystem by reporting a trademark infringement or violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act to a company or a competent authority.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NFT QR authentication teaching of Weigold with the comparing image and preventing linkage teaching of Suk because Suk teaches in par 005 that: “However, in the case of the former configuration, even if artwork is authenticated and verified by an expert and transacted with NFTs, the configuration may not prevent malicious purchasers from making a counterfeit or reselling a forgery as artwork. The latter configuration confirms unique characteristics of a product through a block chain, but does not apply block chain technology to verify the unique characteristics of the product or transact the product. In order to transact real assets such as works or real-art with NFTs, it is necessary to first verify whether there are real assets certified with the NFT.” Suk’s teaching solves the problem of someone duplicating an NFT as one could simply have the same link, NFT’s usually point to a URL, and say it is genuine. As Suk would provide more assurance of anti-counterfeit protection, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Suk.
Per claim 8, Weigold, Taitern, Ren, and Suk teach the limitations of claim 7, above. Weigold further teaches the image of the indicium is received through the customer front end in Fig 4 where the QR1 is optically scanned by a client device which teaches customer front end.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigold et al., US PGPUB 20250069094 A1 (“Weigold”) in view of Taitern, “How to Create AT-Generated Hidden QR Codes in Images on Web,” [online] Medium.com, June 18, 2023, available at: < https://taitern.medium.com/how-to-create-ai-generated-hidden-qr-codes-in-images-on-web-bro-232995a2dee1 > (“Taitern”), further in view of Durham, US PGPUB 20240232560 A1 (“Durham”).
Per claim 9, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Weigold does not teach the indicium includes a trademark associated with the item.
Durham teaches using a QR code to identify the source of a product. See abstract.
Durham teaches the indicium includes a trademark associated with the item in par 040: “In another embodiment, an image, symbol, trademark, logo, design, non-fungible token (“NFT”), or other related artwork may be incorporated into said QR code and, by scanning said QR code, information may be derived relating to said image, symbol, trademark, logo, design, NFT, or other related artwork. For example, a QR code, incorporating said image, symbol, trademark, logo, design, NFT, or other artwork, may direct a consumer to a specific webpage address either for additional information or for the ability to purchase said item or article.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the QR and NFT teaching of Weigold with the trademark included in indicium teaching of Durham because one would be motivated to include the IP which identifies a product (TM) so that a consumer knows which product they are purchasing. This helps a consumer distinguish the product from generics, which adds additional information to the authentication and provenance information as it states that the product is from a particular producer. For this reason one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Durham.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigold et al., US PGPUB 20250069094 A1 (“Weigold”) in view of Taitern, “How to Create AT-Generated Hidden QR Codes in Images on Web,” [online] Medium.com, available at: < https://taitern.medium.com/how-to-create-ai-generated-hidden-qr-codes-in-images-on-web-bro-232995a2dee1 > (“Taitern”), further in view of Williams et al., US Pat No 5597995 (“Williams”).
Per claim 16, Weigold and Taitern teach the limitations of claim 15, above. Weigold further teaches QR Code as explained above. Weigold does not teach presenting, to the user, an outline corresponding to the item associated with the [] code portion of the indicium.
Williams teaches a medicine fulfillment process. See abstract.
Williams teaches presenting, to the user, an outline corresponding to the item associated with the [] code portion of the indicium in col 10 ln 23-38: “At checking work station 300 the final quality control step of the pharmacy system 10 prescription fulfillment process is completed by the on-duty pharmacist. When the order is complete, this fact is signalled by scanner wand 214 at the filling work station 200 to the on duty pharmacist via display screen 308 of third computer 304. At this time the pharmacist at the checking work station area 302 pulls the prescription order tote 290 from the aforementioned cubby hole 286 and picks one of the prescriptions. The pharmacist scans again the medical prescription bar code 18 from label 118 or order sheet 222 with the scanner wand 310. This scan causes the image 14 of the original medical prescription 12 and the image 16 of the drug product 230 to be displayed on the checking station's 300 terminal screen 308, from these visual queues, the pharmacist verifies that the prescription has been properly filled.” Because an image includes an outline (a contrast between the background and the item) Williams teaches that the user is presented with an outline.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the counterfeit QR code verification teaching of Weigold with the presenting an outline teaching of Williams because Williams teaches the particular problem to be solved which is verification of an item. Williams’ teaching would motivate one ordinarily skilled because it allows for additional security in verifying an item. By scanning a code and seeing an image, one can verify that the item was correctly labeled at the time the code was put on the item. This would provide more assurance that the code represents the item in question. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Williams.
Per claim 17, Weigold, Taitern, and Williams teach the limitations of claim 16, above.
Weigold further teaches comprising receiving, from a user, an image of the indicium and the associated item in Fig 3 where an image is taken of the QR code which is an image of the indicium as the QR code contains the indicium and is also indicium, and the item as the QR code is located on the item that is being photographed. See the element where the photo includes the bottle being photographed.
Per claim 18, Weigold, Taitern, and Williams teach the limitations of claim 17, above.
Weigold further teaches comparing the image to the stored indicium and profile for authentication of the item in pars 042-043 where the image of the QR code is compared because it is used to open the NFT that is linked to it: “a) Scans the QR1 code that has been laser engraved onto a unique physical item using an optical scanner, camera, QR code reader or similar machine-readable smart phone application available on the user-device. b) Accesses the NFT private key that is stored in the user's personal digital wallet, then use the NFT approved access to download or retrieve the QR2 code that and has been stored online using the cloud storage provider and is digitally linked to the NFT via the metadata in the NFT smart contract.”
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigold et al., US PGPUB 20250069094 A1 (“Weigold”) in view of Taitern, “How to Create AT-Generated Hidden QR Codes in Images on Web,” [online] Medium.com, June 18, 2023, available at: < https://taitern.medium.com/how-to-create-ai-generated-hidden-qr-codes-in-images-on-web-bro-232995a2dee1 > (“Taitern”), further in view of Williams et al., US Pat No 5597995 (“Williams”), further in view of Suk, US PGPUB 20230145439 A1 (“Suk”).
Per claim 19, Weigold, Taitern, and Williams teach the limitations of claim 18, above.
Weigold does not teach presenting, to the user, an authentication notification.
Suk teaches presenting, to the user, an authentication notification in par 081 where output teaches presenting to the user: “When the authentication service providing server 300 provides the NFT transaction platform by itself, the user terminal 100 uploads the product certified with the NFT to the NFT transaction platform (S4530), and when there is the purchaser terminal 400 that sees the uploaded product to confirm whether the product is genuine, the authentication service providing server 300 compares the surface fingerprint in the NFT registered in the block chain with the surface fingerprint in the NFT uploaded in the NFT transaction platform (S4700) and transmits the comparison result to the purchaser terminal 400. In this case, after the purchaser terminal 400 makes a purchase (S4800), the authentication service providing server 300 performs delivery processing (S4810), and when the delivery completion event is output from a delivery driver terminal (not illustrated), the purchaser terminal 400 confirms whether the photographing device is interlocked (S4900) and then performs control to photograph the surface fingerprint (S4900). In this case, when the number of times of enlargement or reduction is stored in the authentication service providing server 300, it is possible to automatically adjust the enlargement times without manipulating the UI in the purchaser terminal 400. As in operation S4700, the surface fingerprint photographed in this way may be output from the purchaser terminal 400 through the surface fingerprint comparison process (S4910) according to whether the product is genuine or not (S4930).”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NFT QR authentication teaching of Weigold with the presenting a notification teaching of Suk because Suk teaches in par 005 that: “However, in the case of the former configuration, even if artwork is authenticated and verified by an expert and transacted with NFTs, the configuration may not prevent malicious purchasers from making a counterfeit or reselling a forgery as artwork. The latter configuration confirms unique characteristics of a product through a block chain, but does not apply block chain technology to verify the unique characteristics of the product or transact the product. In order to transact real assets such as works or real-art with NFTs, it is necessary to first verify whether there are real assets certified with the NFT.” Suk’s teaching solves the problem of someone duplicating an NFT as one could simply have the same link, NFT’s usually point to a URL, and say it is genuine. As Suk would provide more assurance of anti-counterfeit protection, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Suk.
Per claim 20, Weigold, Taitern, Williams, and Suk teach the limitations of claim 19, above.
Weigold does not teach updating the provenance of the item.
Suk teaches updating the provenance of the item in par 027: “In addition, the authentication service providing server 300 may be a server that transmits an abnormal authentication event to the purchaser terminal 400 when genuine product verification for the same product occurs sporadically or when the genuine product verification occurs at different locations within a time difference other than a speed at which a person can move. In addition, in the case of storing the history log leading to producer-distribution-logistics-distributor-consumer, as well as in the case where consumers resell products whose intellectual property rights have been exhausted by a theory of exhaustion of rights, the authentication service providing server 300 may be a server that allows a genuine chain to be built by continuously managing the history log.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NFT QR authentication teaching of Weigold with the updating teaching of Suk because Suk teaches in par 005 that: “However, in the case of the former configuration, even if artwork is authenticated and verified by an expert and transacted with NFTs, the configuration may not prevent malicious purchasers from making a counterfeit or reselling a forgery as artwork. The latter configuration confirms unique characteristics of a product through a block chain, but does not apply block chain technology to verify the unique characteristics of the product or transact the product. In order to transact real assets such as works or real-art with NFTs, it is necessary to first verify whether there are real assets certified with the NFT.” Suk’s teaching solves the problem of someone duplicating an NFT as one could simply have the same link, NFT’s usually point to a URL, and say it is genuine. As Suk would provide more assurance of anti-counterfeit protection, one would be motivated to modify Weigold with Suk.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant disclosure but is not relied upon in the above rejection:
The use of NFT under a broadest reasonable interpretation is using a picture with a code that says that the picture is unique. See Thaddeus-Johns, “What Are NFTs, Anyway? One Just Sold for $69 Million,” NYT.com, published October 4, 2021, available at: < https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/what-is-an-nft.html >. “The current boom is mostly for digital assets, including images, GIFs,songs or videos. Most importantly, NFTs make digital artworks unique, and therefore sellable.” Therefore an NFT is taught by an image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3619