Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 6/16/2026. Claims 1-3 are pending in this office action. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 3 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Based on Applicant’s amendments and arguments the previous restriction requirement has been withdrawn and claims 1-3 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is interpreted as a process as the claim recites a method. Claim 2 is being interpreted as a process as the claim recites a method. Claim 3 is being interpreted as a process as the claim recites a method.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of collecting information and comparing the information to other information (for example a list or known information) to make a determination of whether or not a product (like a sneaker) is verified (not fake or counterfeit for example), which is a fundamental economic practice.
Fundamental economic practices are certain methods of organizing human activities which are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, Applicant recites the idea of receiving various information related to a sneaker like photos (pictures), codes, tags, comparing that information to other stored information not received from a branded manufacturer, and making a determination based on the comparison to known information or for example a list, whether or not the sneaker can be verified (in that it’s not for example fake or counterfeit). This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that discuss the particular received information and compared information is “RFID, QR codes, video, UPC, GTINs”, the comparisons are performed in part based on “machine learning” and “computer vision”, and the method is “computer” implemented merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here the additional element limitations provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. Here the additional elements recite only the idea of determining verified (or fake or counterfeit) sneakers through use the additional elements of “RFID, video, QR codes, UPC, GTINs”, “machine learning” and “computer vision”, and being “computer” implemented, without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the additional elements above solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The additional elements above are merely recited as tool for performing the collection, comparing the data, and making a determination, rather than purporting to improve a computer.
Further this can be viewed as merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
As per claim 2, Applicant recites the idea of receiving various information related to a sneaker like photos (pictures), codes, comparing that information to other stored information not received from a branded manufacturer, and making a determination based on the comparison to known information or for example a list, whether or not the sneaker can be verified (in that it’s not for example fake or counterfeit). This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that discuss the received information and compared information is “QR codes and video”, the comparisons are performed in part based on “machine learning” and “computer vision”, and the method is “computer” implemented merely result in apply it and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 3, Applicant recites the idea of receiving various information related to a sneaker like photos (pictures), codes, comparing that information to other stored information not received from a branded manufacturer, and making a determination based on the comparison to known information or for example a list, whether or not the sneaker can be verified (in that it’s not for example fake or counterfeit). Further the claim recites when a sneaker is verified updating a ledger (record) by storing information related to the collected data for a first owner and further teaches updating this data whenever the sneaker changes homeownership including updating the ownership for the subsequent owners. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that discuss the received information and compared information is “RFID, QR codes, video, barcodes”, the comparisons are performed in part based on “machine learning” and “computer vision”, and the method is “computer” implemented merely result in apply it and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers as discussed in claim 1.
Further the additional element recited here the ledger (record) is a specific type ledger known as blockchain and the collected and compared information can further include an “NFC” tag (in the alternative, therefore not necessarily required) merely recites again herein apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim additional elements recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here the additional element limitations provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Here the additional elements recite only the idea of using “blockchain” to update the store information and further update records without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the additional elements above solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The additional elements above are recites using blockchain as a tool to store and update information, rather than purporting to improve a computer.
Further the additional elements recite only the idea of using “NFC” (in the alternative, therefore not necessarily required in the claims) to collected and compare information without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the additional elements above solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The additional elements above merely recites using NFC to receive and compare information, rather than purporting to improve a computer.
Further this can be viewed as merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3 are 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.
Claims 1-3 contains the trademark/trade name QR CODE. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a specific type of code and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greco et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0108024) further in view of Maher et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0282974).
As per claim 1, Greco et al. teaches A computer-implemented method for (see paragraph 0004, Examiner’s note: method for tracking goods).
verifying sneakers (see paragraph 0039, Examiner’s note: item can be a shoe).
wherein the sneaker includes a QR code, corresponding GTIN or UPC, and RFID tag, the method comprising: (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include UPC, GTIN, QR codes, and RFID, while both are shown only one of GTIN or UPC is required by the claims).
receiving picture(s) and/or video(s) of a sneaker to be verified; (see paragraph 0036,0062, and 0085, Examiner’s note; teaches storing photographs of an item (see paragraph 0036) and paragraphs 0062 and 0085 teaches verifying the item based on verification of the image).
receiving a QR code and GTIN associated with a sneaker to be verified; receiving information from the RFID tag; (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include UPC, GTIN, QR codes, and RFID).
comparing the QR code to previously stored QR codes wherein the stored QR codes are not QR codes received directly from a branded manufacturer; comparing the GTIN or UPC to previously stored GTINs or UPCs wherein the stored GTINs or UPCs are not GTINs or UPCs received directly from a branded manufacturer; (see paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including QR Codes can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090) it is further noted that data can be entered into the registry by manufacturers but may also be from other entities like authenticators, owners, or other entities, therefore it does not need to be a manufacturer (see paragraph 0051-0052)).
and determining whether to verify the sneaker based on the picture(s) and/or video(s) of the sneaker, (see paragraph 0036,0062, and 0085, Examiner’s note; teaches storing photographs of an item (see paragraph 0036) and paragraphs 0062 and 0085 teaches verifying the item based on verification of the image).
the QR code and GTIN associated with the sneaker, and the RFID tag information wherein computer vision is used to identify the sneaker, (see paragraphs 0088-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include UPC, GTIN, QR codes, and RFID and are used to verify the products. Further it is noted that the use of computer interpreting codes and identifier by scanning or OCR is interpreted as the broadly recited computer vision herein).
wherein the sneaker is not verified if the QR code is not a match of a stored QR code, wherein the sneaker is not verified if the UPC does not coincide with the identified sneaker, (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including GTIN or UPC (while both are shown here only one is required by the claim listed in the alternative) can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090)
and wherein the sneaker is not verified if the RFID tag not encoded or unreadable (see paragraphs 0042, 0047, and 0089, Examiner’s note: circuit is what allows the tag to communicate (see paragraph 0042), where this is done via RFID (see paragraph 0047 and 0089), and transmits a warning signal that the tag has been tampered with as it is unable to read the data (see paragraph 0042)).
Greco does not expressly teach (1) and machine learning is used to identify the item and (2) not verifying the item if the identifier (tag) is a duplicate.
Maher et al. which is in the art of detecting counterfeit items including designer clothing (see paragraph 0077) teaches (1) and machine learning is used to identify the item (see paragraph 0092, Examiner’s note: using machine learning to detect illicit product and or use).
And (2) not verifying the item if the identifier (tag) is a duplicate (see paragraph 0060, examiner’s note: authority detecting counterfeit tags or the item by identifying tags having duplicate identifiers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Greco et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Maher et al. with the motivation of using a known way to determine counterfeit material by determining duplicate identifiers (see Maher et al. paragraph 0060) and determine counterfeit material through known pattern detection (see Maher et al. paragraph 0092), when preventing duplicate tags is one of the objective of Greco et al. in counterfeit prevention(paragraph 0003) as well as tracking usage and patterns is known in the teaching of Greco et al. (paragraphs 0078 and 0083).
As per claim 2, Greco et al. teaches A computer-implemented method (see paragraph 0004, Examiner’s note: method for tracking goods).
for verifying sneakers (see paragraph 0039, Examiner’s note: item can be a shoe).
wherein the sneaker includes a QR code, the method comprising: (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can QR codes).
receiving picture(s) and/or video(s) of a sneaker to be verified; (see paragraphs 0036,0062, and 0085, Examiner’s note; teaches storing photographs of an item (see paragraph 0036) and paragraphs 0062 and 0085 teaches verifying the item based on verification of the image).
receiving a QR code associated with a sneaker to be verified; (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include QR codes).
comparing the QR code to previously stored QR codes wherein the stored QR codes are not QR codes received directly from a branded manufacturer; (see paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including QR Codes can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090) it is further noted that data can be entered into the registry by manufacturers but may also be from other entities like authenticators, owners, or other entities, therefore it does not need to be a manufacturer (see paragraph 0051-0052)).
and determining whether to verify the sneaker based on the picture(s) and/or video(s) of the sneaker (see paragraph 0036,0062, and 0085, Examiner’s note; teaches storing photographs of an item (see paragraph 0036) and paragraphs 0062 and 0085 teaches verifying the item based on verification of the image).
and the QR code wherein computer vision (see paragraphs 0088-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include QR codes and are used to verify the products. Further it is noted that the use of computer interpreting codes and identifier by scanning or OCR is interpreted as the broadly recited computer vision herein).
is used to identify the sneaker and wherein the sneaker is not verified if the QR code is not a match of a stored QR code. (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including GTIN or UPC (while both are shown here only one is required by the claim listed in the alternative) can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090).
Greco does not expressly teach (1) and machine learning is used to identify the item and (2) not verifying the item if the identifier (tag) is a duplicate.
Maher et al. which is in the art of detecting counterfeit items including designer clothing (see paragraph 0077) teaches (1) and machine learning is used to identify the item (see paragraph 0092, Examiner’s note: using machine learning to detect illicit product and or use).
And (2) not verifying the item if the identifier (tag) is a duplicate (see paragraph 0060, examiner’s note: authority detecting counterfeit tags or the item by identifying tags having duplicate identifiers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Greco et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Maher et al. with the motivation of using a known way to determine counterfeit material by determining duplicate identifiers (see Maher et al. paragraph 0060) and determine counterfeit material through known pattern detection (see Maher et al. paragraph 0092), when preventing duplicate tags is one of the objective of Greco et al. in counterfeit prevention(paragraph 0003) as well as tracking usage and patterns is known in the teaching of Greco et al. (paragraphs 0078 and 0083).
As per claim 3, Greco et al. teaches A computer-implemented method (see paragraph 0004, Examiner’s note: method for tracking goods).
for verifying, tracking ownership, and maintaining information for sneakers, the method comprising: (see paragraphs 0039 and 0049-0050, Examiner’s note: item can be a shoe (See paragraph 0039) and further teaches where these registries may include ownership data (see paragraphs 0049-0050)).
receiving picture(s) and/or video(s) of a sneaker to be verified and associated information; (see paragraph 0036,0062, and 0085, Examiner’s note; teaches storing photographs of an item (see paragraph 0036) and paragraphs 0062 and 0085 teaches verifying the item based on verification of the image).
identifying the sneaker; determining whether the sneaker is verified; (see paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including QR Codes can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090)).
if the sneaker is verified, receiving associated data related to the sneaker and storing the associated data using a blockchain wherein the associated data comprises a unique identification number for the sneaker received by scanning a NFC tag, RFID tag, or QR code or barcode associated with the sneaker and ownership information of a first owner; and updating the associated data whenever the sneaker changes ownership including updating the ownership information for subsequent owners, (see paragraphs 0049-0050, 0075, 0089, 0091-0092 Examiner’s note: teaches storing registry information including ownership information in the blockchain (see paragraphs 0049-0050), establishing ownership based on possession (see paragraphs 0075) where possession is established based on scanning of tags like RFID or QR code or barcodes and creating a record in the transaction ledger (see paragraphs 0089, 0091-0092)).
Wherein the sneaker includes a QR code, corresponding GTIN or UPC, and RFID tag, and (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include UPC, GTIN, QR codes, and RFID, while both are shown only one of GTIN or UPC is required by the claims).
Wherein determining whether the sneaker is verified comprises: Receiving a QR code and GTIN associated with the sneaker to be verified, Receiving information from the RFID tag; (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include UPC, GTIN, QR codes, and RFID).
Comparing the QR code to previously stored QR codes wherein the stored QR codes are not QR codes received directly from a branded manufacturer, Comparing the GTIN or UPC to previously stored GTINs or UPCs wherein the stored GTINs or UPCs are not GTINs or UPCs received directly from a branded manufacturer; (see paragraphs 0051-0052 and 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including QR Codes can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090) it is further noted that data can be entered into the registry by manufacturers but may also be from other entities like authenticators, owners, or other entities, therefore it does not need to be a manufacturer (see paragraph 0051-0052)).
And determining whether to verify the sneaker based on the picture(s) and/or video(s) of the sneaker, (see paragraph 0036,0062, and 0085, Examiner’s note; teaches storing photographs of an item (see paragraph 0036) and paragraphs 0062 and 0085 teaches verifying the item based on verification of the image).
the QR code, and GTIN associated with the sneaker, and the RFID tag information wherein the computer vision is used to identify the sneaker, (see paragraphs 0088-0090, Examiner’s note: tags can include UPC, GTIN, QR codes, and RFID and are used to verify the products. Further it is noted that the use of computer interpreting codes and identifier by scanning or OCR is interpreted as the broadly recited computer vision herein).
wherein the sneaker is not verified if the QR code is a not a match of a stored QR code, wherein the sneaker is not verified if the UPC does not coincide with the identified sneaker, (see paragraphs 0089-0090, Examiner’s note: values including GTIN or UPC (while both are shown here only one is required by the claim listed in the alternative) can be used to look up the one or more goods to determine if they match or corresponds for an authentication (See paragraph 0089-0090)
and wherein the sneaker is not verified if the RFID tag not encoded or unreadable (see paragraphs 0042, 0047, and 0089, Examiner’s note: circuit is what allows the tag to communicate (see paragraph 0042), where this is done via RFID (see paragraph 0047 and 0089), and transmits a warning signal that the tag has been tampered with as it is unable to read the data (see paragraph 0042)).
Greco does not expressly teach (1) and machine learning is used to identify the item and (2) not verifying the item if the identifier (tag) is a duplicate.
Maher et al. which is in the art of detecting counterfeit items including designer clothing (see paragraph 0077) teaches (1) and machine learning is used to identify the item (see paragraph 0092, Examiner’s note: using machine learning to detect illicit product and or use).
And (2) not verifying the item if the identifier (tag) is a duplicate (see paragraph 0060, examiner’s note: authority detecting counterfeit tags or the item by identifying tags having duplicate identifiers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Greco et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Maher et al. with the motivation of using a known way to determine counterfeit material by determining duplicate identifiers (see Maher et al. paragraph 0060) and determine counterfeit material through known pattern detection (see Maher et al. paragraph 0092), when preventing duplicate tags is one of the objective of Greco et al. in counterfeit prevention(paragraph 0003) as well as tracking usage and patterns is known in the teaching of Greco et al. (paragraphs 0078 and 0083).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schibi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0314474) teaches determining duplicate tags and using machine learning to determine counterfeit items (see paragraphs 0069 and 0071), where the tag may be a QR code (see paragraph 0103)
Prasad et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0297545) teaches a system and method for verifying information about QEM products (see abstract), that includes shoes (see paragraph 0005), verifying through use of UPCs, QR codes, and RFID tags (see paragraph 0033)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights