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
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the application filed on 6/9/2026, in which, claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2026 and 6/2/2026, has been reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/9/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 12,225,136 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection:
The Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicants argues with respect to Ware-Chen combination failed to disclosed “capturing biological fingerprints information via an extended reality capable device”. (See pg. 6-8 of remarks filed on 6/9/2026)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ware teaches a computing device with an external scanning device for fingerprinting the artwork. Chen teaches a fingerprint capturing device for capture user’s fingerprint and processing the fingerprint image, the fingerprint can be a phone, tablet or other fingerprint capturing devices. The combination would teach the ability to use an art scanning device and a fingerprint scanner device with the computing device would allow one to authenticate both the artwork and the owner and/or artist.
Applicants argues with respect to Ware-Chen combination failed to disclosed “generative artificial intelligence algorithm” and creating “synthetic fingerprint information”. (See pg. 8-9 of remarks filed on 6/9/2026)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the claim merely reciting an AI algorithm, and not specifying the particular algorithm, as well as the specification of synthetic fingerprint information. As such, Ware generating of fingerprint of the artwork and Chen generating fingerprint data, geometric points, from the scanned fingerprint to create candidate fingerprint, thus would be sufficient to read on the claimed limitations.
Applicants argues with respect to Ware-Chen combination failed to disclosed “IoT communication channel”. (See pg. 9-10 of remarks filed on 6/9/2026)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the claim merely reciting IoT communication channel, without specifying what the feature of the communication channel. As such the communication network any data communication network such as the Internet, an SDWAN, an SDN (Software Defined Network), WAN, a LAN, WLAN, a cellular network (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G or 6G), or a hybrid of different types of networks. Various data protocols can dictate format for the data packets. For example, Wi-Fi data packets can be formatted according to IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802,11r, 802.11be, Wi-Fi 6, Wi-Fi 6E, Wi-Fi 7 and the like., would read on the claimed limitations. As one with ordinary skill in the art would know that IoT communicates of Wi-Fi, bluetooth and other forms of communications.
Applicants argues with respect to Ware-Chen combination failed to disclosed “Invisible to detection”. (See pg. 9-10 of remarks filed on 6/9/2026)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation does not elaborate on how it creates the invisibility of the data or how it is invisible. As such, if data are encrypted, the data is itself is invisible during transmission.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims rejected under prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ware (US 20230342790 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 20210365662 A1; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17, Ware discloses a system comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor ([¶32] the components and modules of the system 100 can be instantiated within the system memory 510 of any computer system 500, such that when the processor 520 of the computer system), cause the system to:
capture, via an extended reality capable device of a computing device, first fingerprint information [[comprising a biological fingerprint image of a user]] ([¶29] receive an artwork fingerprint derived from a partial or a full scan of an artist's physical artwork and scan instructions for recreating the scan. The fingerprint may be signed with an artist signature associated with the artist's physical artwork);
store the encoded first fingerprint information in a data store ([¶6, 27-29] the trusted scan stored on the blockchain);
transmit the second fingerprint information for smart contract generation, wherein transmitting the second fingerprint information for smart contract generation comprises transmitting the second fingerprint information as a data packet via an Internet-of-things device-to-device communication channel ([¶31] transfers control of authentication from the artist to the buyer. Specifically, the artist fingerprint is transferred from the seller to the buyer on the blockchain, and can be updated and re-encrypted for a subsequent verification. In other words, the trusted artist fingerprint is associated with the address of the buyer and other information, and the blockchain is updated accordingly). Ware does not explicilty discloses the following features; however, in a related and analogous art, Chen teaches these features.
In particular, Chen teaches first fingerprint information comprising a biological fingerprint image of a user ([¶4-6] a touch display equipped with a fingerprint capturing device has been developed, which can recognize a user using the touch screen and provide a personalized interaction to be able to recognize user’s fingerprints);
generate, based on the first fingerprint information and using a generative artificial intelligence algorithm, second fingerprint information, wherein the second fingerprint information comprises a synthetic fingerprint image associated with the biological fingerprint image of a user ([¶6] inputting the signals filled in the part of pixels in the pixel array into an artificial intelligence engine, wherein the fingerprint sensor generates a candidate fingerprint image according to the pixel array, wherein the processor recognizes the user according to the candidate fingerprint image). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ware in view of Chen with the motivation easier authenticate the artist and not just the artwork. By authenticating both the artist and artwork, the transaction would be more accurate and secured.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Ware-Chen combination discloses wherein the synthetic fingerprint image is invisible to detection during transmission (the fingerprints are encrypted, thus not visible during transmission [Ware; ¶26]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Ware-Chen combination discloses wherein the generative artificial intelligence algorithm comprises an unsupervised learning algorithm (using AI to generate signal of pixel to high pixel array [Chen; ¶51-53; Fig. 9 and associated texts]). The motivation easier authenticates the artist and not just the artwork. By authenticating both the artist and artwork, the transaction would be more accurate and secured.
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 19, Ware-Chen combination discloses further comprising a rules engine, wherein the rules engine is configured to verify a generated smart contract complies with identified local or state defined protocols (generating a smart contracted with set rules [Ware; ¶27-29]).
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 20, Ware-Chen combination discloses wherein the rules engine is further configured to notify the user of a discrepancy in the verified smart contract (transaction is hinges until validation of smart contract, and void if discrepancy or fingerprint is compromised [Ware; ¶30-31, 51-52]).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Ware-Chen combination discloses wherein the extended reality capable device is an edge extended reality device (artist device [Ware; ¶16]).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Ware-Chen combination discloses wherein capturing the first fingerprint information comprises scanning the biological fingerprint image of the user in an extended immersive environment that simulates physical presence (sensing a finger of the user to obtain a plurality of fingerprint images through a fingerprint sensor disposed on the touch display [Chen; ¶5]). The motivation easier authenticates the artist and not just the artwork. By authenticating both the artist and artwork, the transaction would be more accurate and secured.
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Ware-Chen combination discloses wherein storing the first fingerprint information in the data store comprises storing the first fingerprint information based at least one predefined indexed category (the information is stored in the blockchain and ledger [Ware; ¶22-23]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights