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
Claim1 has been cancelled and Claims 2-20 have been added; therefore, Claims 2-20 are currently pending in application 18/968,285.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,288,683; and over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements for authenticating a product.
18/968,285
US 11,288,683 (14/933674)
2. A computing device comprising: a capacitor pad including a plurality of capacitance sensors; at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to
sense a product package based on an activation of one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors, determine whether the product package includes an electrically conductive shape based on which of the plurality of capacitance sensors were activated and which of the plurality of capacitance sensors remained idle, determine, in response to a determination that the product package includes the electrically conductive shape, whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to an authentication pattern, and initiate, in response to a determination that the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern, an internet browsing application.
4. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the capacitance pad includes an array of the plurality of capacitance sensors.
5. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the activation of the one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors includes a simultaneous activation of at least some of the plurality of capacitance sensors.
7. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to request an input of a package code; and send an input package code through the internet browsing application, and wherein the package code is configured to enable an authentication server to authenticate the product package.
9. The computer device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to send a location of the computer-device to the authentication server based on a determination, by the authentication server, that the input package code is invalid or that the input package code has been used before.
10. The computer device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to end the internet browsing application in response to a determination, by the authentication server, that the input package code is invalid.
11. The computer device of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to send a location of the computing device to the authentication server based on a receipt of confirmation that the authentication of the product package is valid.
12. The computer device of claim 2, further comprising: a display including the capacitor pad.
13. The computer device of claim 2, further comprising: a housing, the capacitor pad integrated into the housing.
3. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the electrically conductive shape includes an electrically conductive ink; and the plurality of capacitance sensors are configured to detect the electrically conductive ink based on a drop in voltage in a sensor of the plurality of capacitance sensors.
6. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the determine whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern includes compensating for an orientation of the electrically conductive shape.
8. The computer device of claim 7, wherein the authenticate the product package includes determining whether the input package code is in a database at the authentication server and whether the input package code has not been used before.
14. A product package comprising: a substrate; a conductive pattern on the substrate and comprising a conductive ink, the conductive pattern corresponding to an authentication pattern and configured to simultaneously activate a subset of an array of capacitor sensors included in a capacitor pad; and a package code in the product package.
9. A computing device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to,
trigger a first authentication process in response to sensing a conductive ink in proximity to the computing device, the conductive ink being printed on a surface of a product, the computing device including a capacitive pad having one or more sensors, sense a desired pattern of the conductive ink using the one or more sensors of the capacitive pad, initiate an internet browsing application on the computing device in response to triggering appropriate sensors of the one or more sensors of the capacitive pad, initiate a second authentication process, the second authentication process including, sending a code to a remote server, the code being printed on the surface of the product, receiving a product authentication determination from the remote server, the product authentication determination is valid when (i) the code is in a database at the remote server and (ii) the code has not been used before a present attempt, and in response to the product authentication determination indicating the code is excluded from the database or the code has been used before the present attempt, determining a location of the computing device, and sending the location of the computing device to the remote server for storage.
11. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the code includes a package code.
10. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the conductive ink corresponds to an orientation of the one or more sensors.
15. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the first authentication process is based on a shape of the conductive ink.
16. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the first authentication process is based on a configuration of the conductive ink.
12. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: end the application if the code is not found in the database.
13. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: end the application if the remote server has determined the code has been used before the present attempt.
14. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: receive from the remote server, based on the product authentication determination, (A) a product package history information, (B) access to product package vendor information, or both (A) and (B).
17. The computing device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive from the remote server, based on the product authentication determination, a coupon for the product.
1. A product authentication method comprising: triggering a first authentication process in response to sensing an electrically conductive ink in proximity to a computing device, the computing device including a capacitive pad having a one or more sensors, the conductive ink being printed on a surface of a product; sensing a desired pattern of the electrically conductive ink using the one or more sensors of the capacitive pad; initiating an internet browsing application on the computing device in response to triggering appropriate sensors of the one or more sensors of the capacitive pad; and performing a second authentication process via the initiated application, the second authentication process including, sending a package code to a remote server, the package code being printed on the surface of the product, and receiving a product authentication determination from the remote server, the product authentication determination is valid when (i) the package code is in a database at the remote server and (ii) the package code has not been used before a present attempt, and in response to the product authentication determination indicating the package code is excluded from the database or the package code has been used before the present attempt, determining a location of the computing device, and sending the location of the computing device to the remote server for storage.
18/968,285
US 12,205,125 (17/700869)
2. A computing device comprising: a capacitor pad including a plurality of capacitance sensors; at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to
sense a product package based on an activation of one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors, determine whether the product package includes an electrically conductive shape based on which of the plurality of capacitance sensors were activated and which of the plurality of capacitance sensors remained idle, determine, in response to a determination that the product package includes the electrically conductive shape (pattern), whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to an authentication pattern, and initiate, in response to a determination that the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern, an internet browsing application.
3. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the electrically conductive shape includes an electrically conductive ink; and the plurality of capacitance sensors are configured to detect the electrically conductive ink based on a drop in voltage in a sensor of the plurality of capacitance sensors.
4. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the capacitance pad includes an array of the plurality of capacitance sensors.
5. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the activation of the one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors includes a simultaneous activation of at least some of the plurality of capacitance sensors.
6. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the determine whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern includes compensating for an orientation of the electrically conductive shape.
7. The computer device of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to request an input of a package code; and send an input package code through the internet browsing application, and wherein the package code is configured to enable an authentication server to authenticate the product package.
12. The computer device of claim 2, further comprising: a display including the capacitor pad.
13. The computer device of claim 2, further comprising: a housing, the capacitor pad integrated into the housing.
8. The computer device of claim 7, wherein the authenticate the product package includes determining whether the input package code is in a database at the authentication server and whether the input package code has not been used before.
9. The computer device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to send a location of the computer-device to the authentication server based on a determination, by the authentication server, that the input package code is invalid or that the input package code has been used before.
10. The computer device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to end the internet browsing application in response to a determination, by the authentication server, that the input package code is invalid.
11. The computer device of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to send a location of the computing device to the authentication server based on a receipt of confirmation that the authentication of the product package is valid.
14. A product package comprising: a substrate; a conductive pattern on the substrate and comprising a conductive ink, the conductive pattern corresponding to an authentication pattern and configured to simultaneously activate a subset of an array of capacitor sensors included in a capacitor pad; and a package code in the product package.
16. The product package of claim 14, wherein the package code corresponds to a code stored at an authentication server.
17. The product package of claim 14, wherein the conductive pattern is configured to enable an authentication of the product package by an electronic device based on a comparison of the conductive pattern and the authentication pattern.
18. The product package of claim 17, wherein the authentication of the product package by the electronic device is a first authentication, and the package code corresponds to a code stored at an authentication server and allows a second authentication of the product package by the authentication server.
15. The product package as recited in claim 14, wherein the conductive ink comprises a color outside of a visible light spectrum range, and package code comprises a color inside the visible light spectrum range.
1./ 7. An authentication server having a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive confirmation from a computing device that a first authentication process is valid, the first authentication process including, sensing an electrically conductive ink in proximity to the computing device, the computing device including a capacitive pad having one or more sensors, the electrically conductive ink being printed on a surface of a product, sensing a desired pattern of the electrically conductive ink using the one or more sensors of the capacitive pad, and initiating an internet browsing application running on the computing device in response to triggering appropriate sensors of the one or more sensors of the capacitive pad; receive a package code from the computing device; refer to a non-transitory computer readable medium to determine whether the package code is present in the non-transitory computer readable medium; and provide the computing device with access to software stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium when the package code is present in the non-transitory computer readable medium.
8. The authentication server of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the package code is valid and send an error message to the computing device when the package code is invalid.
9. The authentication server of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: receive a location of the computing device when the package code is not valid, and store the location of the computing device in the non-transitory computer readable medium.
10. The authentication server of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether the package code is unused and send an error message to the computing device when the package code is unused.
11. The authentication server of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: receive a location of the computing device when the package code is not unused, and store the location of the computing device in the non-transitory computer readable medium.
12. The authentication server of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: send product package history information to the computing device when the package code is not unused, and provide the computing device with access to product package vendor information.
13. A product package comprising: a substrate; an ink on a surface of the substrate, the ink being electrically conductive and including in a pattern configured to trigger a first authentication process in a computing device when the pattern of the ink is proximate to a capacitive pad of the computing device having a plurality of sensors and when the pattern of the ink simultaneously triggers appropriate sensors of the plurality of sensors of the capacitive pad; and a package code on the surface of the substrate, the package code configured to trigger a second authentication process, wherein the second authentication process includes sending the package code to a remote server, receiving a product authentication determination from the remote server, the product authentication determination is valid when (i) the package code is in a database at the remote server and (ii) the package code has not been used before a present attempt, in response to the product authentication determination indicating the package code is excluded from the database or the package code has been used before the present attempt, determining a location of the computing device, and sending the location of the computing device to the remote server for storage.
14. The product package as recited in claim 13, wherein the ink comprises a color outside of a visible light spectrum range
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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claim 14 recites, “a package code in the product package”; however, the Applicant’s specification, drawings, and original claims, all fail to disclose placing the package code in the product package (See Applicant’s Specification Para 0061, “Example embodiments of the product package 102 include a second code 126 (i.e., a package code, described in detail below with respect to FIG. 6) printed on the substrate 114 of the product package 102.”). Therefore, the claim 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims 15-20 are rejection for the same reasons as independent claim 14, which they are dependent.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 2-13 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 2-13 are directed toward a system (computing device). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 2-13 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 2 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of authenticating a product.
Regarding independent claim 2, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A computing device comprising: a capacitor pad including a plurality of capacitance sensors; at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to
sense a product package based on an activation of one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors, [Mental processes - Sensing a product package and determining an electrically conductive shape based on sensor activation/idle status. Considered a mental process grouping—a step that could realistically be performed in the human mind (or with pen and paper).]
determine whether the product package includes an electrically conductive shape based on which of the plurality of capacitance sensors were activated and which of the plurality of capacitance sensors remained idle, determine, in response to a determination that the product package includes the electrically conductive shape, whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to an authentication pattern, and [Mental processes / Certain methods of organizing human activity - determine if it forms a shape, and verify if it matches an authentication pattern.]
initiate, in response to a determination that the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern, an internet browsing application. [Certain methods of organizing human activity - Rules governing communication. The trigger to open a browser is also a mere "field of use" or post-solution activity.]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 2 is directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Dependent claims 3-13 provide further details to the abstract idea of claim 2 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 2.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 2-13 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a "capacitor pad," a "processor," and a "non-transitory computer readable medium". However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as generic tools or conduits to perform the abstract steps on a computer and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. The claims do not improve the technical functioning of the computer, nor do they improve the capacitance sensing technology itself. The claims simply uses standard sensors to automate a known business or functional process. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 3-13 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 2-13 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a "capacitor pad," a "processor," and a "non-transitory computer readable medium". However, the hardware is used in a routine, conventional manner, and the analysis steps (determining conductive shapes and triggering internet browsers) are standard extra-solution activities, there is no inventive concept, and these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 3-13 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 2, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 2; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 2-13 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verschuur et al. (US 2005/006472 A1).
As per independent Claim 14 Verschuur discloses a product package comprising:
a substrate; a conductive pattern on the substrate and comprising a conductive ink (See also least Para 0025), the conductive pattern corresponding to an authentication pattern and configured to simultaneously activate a subset of an array of capacitor sensors included in a capacitor pad (See at least Para 0007, “According to one embodiment, a set of printable articles having conductivity signatures in accordance with the invention includes a plurality of printable substrates and a conductive material associated with each of the printable substrates. The conductive material is distributed among the printable substrates so that the conductive material contributes to the formation of individual conductivity patterns on the printable substrates. The conductivity patterns are detectable as unique signatures that differ from each other in an effectively random manner. Capacitive sensors, for example, can detect the conductivity signatures.”; Para 0008, “Preferably, the conductivity patterns are applied directly or indirectly to the substrates by printing with an electrically conductive medium, such as an electrically conductive ink. Variations in electrical conductivity with position provide a detectable signature. Thus, it is not necessary for the conductive medium to contain pigments for the purpose of forming a capacitive signature, although the conductive medium can contain pigments for the additional purpose of conveying visible information. Beyond the variations in electrical conductivity associated with the appearance of the printed patterns, the electrical conductivity characteristics can be further varied as a result of variations in the conductive medium or in the substrates as well as with variations in the relationship between the conductive medium and the substrates. Thus, merely reproducing the printed pattern of the conductive medium does not necessarily reproduce the conductivity pattern associated with the printed pattern.” - Capacitive Sensors disclosed in the prior art of Verschuur are equivalent to claimed “Capacitive Pad”; See also Para 0019, 0022, 0032-0035, 0039, 0060-0061, and 0069-0071); and
a package code on the product package (See at least Para 0067, “Alternatively, either of the printed patterns 18 and 20 can encode meaningful information, such as barcode or other symbology that carries an identifying code.”; See also Para 0069 and Para 0081).
As per Claim 15 Verschuur discloses wherein the conductive ink comprises a color outside of a visible light spectrum range, and package code comprises a color inside the visible light spectrum range (See at least Para 0025, “As a further security enhancement, the conductivity signatures are preferably hidden from view. The conductive ink can be colorless or can be printed in a color that lacks contrast with the surrounding medium.”).
As per Claim 16 Verschuur discloses wherein the package code corresponds to a code stored at an authentication server (See at least Para 0081).
As per Claim 17 Verschuur discloses wherein the conductive pattern is configured to enable an authentication of the product package by an electronic device based on a comparison of the conductive pattern and the authentication pattern (See at least Para 0112, “Counterfeit cards or other media can be detected by comparing the signatures or lack thereof on the counterfeit cards with signatures stored in a database.”; See also Para 0113).
As per Claim 18 (17) Verschuur discloses wherein the authentication of the product package by the electronic device is a first authentication (See at least Para 0112), and the package code corresponds to a code stored at an authentication server and allows a second authentication of the product package by the authentication server (See at least Para 0069, “The collective conductivity pattern associated with the two printed patterns 18 and 20 of the ticket 10, whether regarded as containing meaningful information (e.g., a barcode) or not, serves as a permanent record of that ticket's signature and can be combined with other security features or systems to verify the authenticity of the ticket 10.”; Para 0081, “… Although the capacitive signature is derived from effectively random conductivity characteristics, the conductivity pattern can also encode additional information, such as information unique to a casino or other distributor in the form of a visible barcode or other symbology that can be decoded for further identifying the ticket 10. Alternatively, the additional information can be encoded separately from the conductivity pattern, such as by printing the code in a visible pattern or by writing the code on a magnetic stripe. The additional information, which can be acquired by a separate reader 36 (see FIG. 1), can be stored together with the unique signatures in the database 34, so that the signatures can be more readily accessed through the additional information that identifies ticket 10 in the database 34. For example, the additional information, such as an identification code, can take less storage space that the signatures themselves, and thus, are more readily searchable.”; See also Para 0032-0035, 0038-0039, and Para 0042).
As per Claim 19 Verschuur discloses wherein the conductive pattern is configured to be detectable from an exterior surface of the product package (See at least Para 0069 and Para 0081).
As per Claim 20 Verschuur discloses wherein the package code is on the substrate (See at least Para 0069 and Para 0081).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Verschuur et al. (US 2005/0006472 A1) in view of Gutierrez (US 9,010,625 B2).
As per independent Claim 2, Verschuur discloses a computing device (See at least Para 0070) comprising: a capacitor pad including a plurality of capacitance sensors (See at least Para 0007-0008; Para 0032, Para 0065); at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer device to
sense a product package (i.e. ticket) based on an activation of one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors (See at least Para 0065),
determine whether the product package includes an electrically conductive shape (pattern) based on which of the plurality of capacitance sensors were activated and which of the plurality of capacitance sensors remained idle (See also least Para 0025, Para 0065, See also Para 0080-0081),
determine, in response to a determination that the product package includes the electrically conductive shape, whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to an authentication pattern (See also least Para 0025; Para 0080-0081).
While Verschuur does disclose accessing. with a computer, a computer database to authenticate an item; Verschuur fails to expressly disclose Verschuur initiate, in response to a determination that the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern, an internet browsing application.
However, the analogous art of Gutierrez discloses a product identification/ authentication system, that after scanning a product code, accessing the internet to locate authentication data regarding the scanned product (See at least Fig.1, and C3L45-C4L19).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included initiate, in response to a determination that the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern, an internet browsing application, as disclosed by Gutierrez in the system disclosed by Verschuur for the advantage of providing a system/ method/ product for authenticating a product, with the ability to increase system efficiency and effectiveness by incorporating a variety of data connection techniques to location and use authentication data (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claim 3, Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the electrically conductive shape includes an electrically conductive ink; and the plurality of capacitance sensors are configured to detect the electrically conductive ink based on a drop in voltage in a sensor of the plurality of capacitance sensors (Verschuur: See also least Para 0021, Para 0025, Para 0032, and Para 0041 - Capacitance sensors triggered by conductive ink in an equivalent manner as claimed).
As per Claim 4, Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the capacitance pad includes an array of the plurality of capacitance sensors (Verschuur: See also least Para 0025).
As per Claim 5, Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the activation of the one or more of the plurality of capacitance sensors includes a simultaneous activation of at least some of the plurality of capacitance sensors (Verschuur: See also least Para 0025).
As per Claim 6, Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the determine whether the electrically conductive shape corresponds to the authentication pattern includes compensating for an orientation of the electrically conductive shape (Verschuur: See also least Para 0041).
As per Claim 7, Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to request an input of a package code; and send an input package code through the internet browsing application, and wherein the package code is configured to enable an authentication server to authenticate the product package (Verschuur: See at least Para 0039, Para 0069, and Para 0081) (Gutierrez: See at least Fig.1, and C3L45-C4L19).
As per Claim 8 (7) Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the authenticate the product package (i.e. Ticket) includes determining whether the input package code is in a database at the authentication server and whether the input package code has not been used before (Verschuur: See at least Para 0112, “Counterfeit cards or other media can be detected by comparing the signatures or lack thereof on the counterfeit cards with signatures stored in a database.”; See also Para 0080, Para 0082, Para 0113).
As per Claim 9 (8) Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to send a location of the computer-device to the authentication server based on a determination, by the authentication server, that the input package code is invalid or that the input package code has been used before (Verschuur: See at least Para 0080, Para 0112-0013) (Gutierrez: See at least C4L36-45, “The fact that the codes 14 provide information relating to the individual container 10, as opposed to all wine bottles with the same contents of the container 10, gives rise to many of the advantages of the present invention. Each time the barcode 14 is scanned by the cell phone or like electronic device 16 so as to send a message to the website 20 which includes the unique code of the bottle 10, the website acts to store the time of receipt of that information and the geographic location of the bottle 10, as determined by the GPS of the deice 16, to the website 20.”).
As per Claim 10 (8) Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to end the internet browsing application in response to a determination, by the authentication server, that the input package code is invalid (Verschuur: See at least Para 0039, Para 0042) (Gutierrez: See at least Fig.1, and C3L45-C4L19).
As per Claim 11 (7) Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computer device to send a location of the computing device to the authentication server based on a receipt of confirmation that the authentication of the product package is valid (Gutierrez: See at least C4L36-45).
As per Claim 12 Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose a display including the capacitor pad (Verschuur: See at least Para 0065).
As per Claim 13 Verschuur and Gutierrez disclose a housing, the capacitor pad integrated into the housing (Verschuur: See at least Para 0069, Gaming Machine).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments, especially the following:
Inoue (US 2006/0010503 A1) – Relates to a product authentication system for providing in an ASP system product authentication service at a distribution stage for the purpose of protecting, by means of preventing counterfeits on the market from entering the distribution channel, the benefit of manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and consumers forming the distribution channel. (See at least Para 0056, “As is known to those skilled in the art, the non-contact tag 11 may be named in different ways, including wireless IC tag, next generation bar code, new generation bar code, ubiquitous ID, wireless IC chip, wireless ID tag, IC tag, non-contact IC tag, IC label, IT tag, non-contact IC card, auto ID, electronic tag, non-contact IC tag, wireless tag, RFID tag, smart tag, non-contact IC chip, etc.”; Para 0057, “The ASP entity 10 leases to each user of the product authentication service the reader 12 for reading an IC code of the non-contact tag 11. The reader 12 can connect to the Internet via a general-purpose terminal such as a personal computer, and has a specific ID. The ID is stored in a body of the reader as electronic data. The ASP entity 10 administers ID data of the reader 12, and data of attribute information such as the name of the user to whom the reader is leased.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Lynda C Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 7, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights