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 .
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that fall under the mental steps/ organized human activity groupings. Claim 14 limitations of a tag including first and second portions with first and second identifiers that are acquirable fall under mental steps. The recitation of first and second devices are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality that are used for routine data gathering steps. The limitations of determining authenticity are just generic computer components performing mental steps. Adding data is mental steps performed by generic computer components and is similar to concepts such as "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are using generic computer components applied to a specific environment, which cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because unlike claim 1, the limitations do not recite crystal orientation which is not seen as abstract.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not teach the claim 13 limitations of the collating by the second device as recited in the claims and does not mention collating in the specification. Re claim 14, the specification does not teach determining authenticity including adding information into the metadata in the block chain upon authenticity determination, as such an algorithm is not disclosed.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambudiri (US 9922224).
Re claim 1, Nambudiri teaches:
An article identification tag (100) attached to an article (object per abstract+), the article identification tag comprising:
a first tag portion including a minute substance representing a first identifier (102 with nanometer range particles); and
a second tag portion (104),
wherein the first identifier is acquirable by optically reading crystal orientation of the minute substance (random pattern 102 of fluorophores identifies the object, abstract+, and while silent to explicitly reciting “crystal orientation” the Examiner has interpreted that the orientation of the fluorophores is functionally equivalent in that they are particle orientations/ minute orientations per the Applicants specification ),
wherein a second identifier is acquirable from the second tag portion by using a method different from a method in which the first identifier is acquired from the first tag portion (QR code 104 is read).
Re claim 2, the QR code is interpreted as a code representing the second identifier.
Re claim 3, col 7, lines 10+ teaches that the code can be embossed on top of the fluorophore pattern or the fluorophores can be embossed on top of the code or they code and fluorophores can be next to each other, which reads on the second tag being readable through the first tag portion.
Re claim 6, a QR code is interpreted as a wireless tag.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambudiri, as discussed above, in view of Ruan (US 20180350274).
Re claims 4-5, the teachings of Nambudiri have been discussed above but are silent to the third tag portion being a wireless tag representing the third identifier and is placed on the second portion facing the article.
Ruan teaches RFID and barcode layers (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in order to add RFID technology to the label.
One would have been motivated to do this for additional security, especially as Nambudiri teaches the use of RFID chips/ tags as a way to have the identification code (col 2, lines 47+).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambudiri, as discussed above, in view of Ryner et al. (US 20200065849).
Re claim 7, the limitations have been discussed above and FIG. 4+ teaches associating with the first device and giving to the database, such as registering information with a system, as known in the art. A second device configured to give the identifier to acquire information can bine interpreted as how data is fetched upon reading, as is known in the art.
Though silent to article information being associated with the first and second identifiers, the Examiner notes that databases storing information of an article related to the barcode or reading of it are routine and conventional in the art for inventory management.
Nonetheless, Ryner et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0025]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the t4eahcings in order to collate information for record keeping/ inventory.
Re claim 8, the limitations have been discussed above, and a reading device can be interpreted as 110 (FIG. 4+ or a processor implicit in the system)
Re claim 11, the limitations have been discussed above. A first device for associating can be interpreted as the computer system/ processor that is implicit. The second device can be interpreted as the reading/ imaging device, for example, or vice versa.
Re claim 12, though silent to a resin binder, fluorophores are dots mixed with an adhesive or a binder in random patterns, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use resin as a binder in order to have a secure way to fix the dots.
Re claim 13, as discussed above, the database stores information that is collated with the serial number, barcodes, prices, etc. Therefore, the Examine notes it would have been obvious that a processor (second device) be configured to collate information and also to acquire information from reading.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambudiri/ Ryner et al., as discussed above, in view of Rahimizad et al. (US 20210174378).
Re claim 9, the prior art is silent to an autonomous decentralized system for the database.
Rahimizad et al. teaches a database such as a blockchain network for storing serial numbers and information on products (paragraph [0085]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for security and resilience.
Re claim 10, Nambudiri teaches at col 5, lines 5+ that images are stored and indexed in a database, which obviates registering the data in a database so as to be used to authenticate, as is known and conventional in the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambudiri/ Ryner et al., as discussed above, in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 2009016265).
The teachings of Nambudiri/ Ryner et al. have been discussed above but are silent to the resin.
Takeuchi et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0036]+ of a resin layer holding particles for authentication.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to use a known material for binding/ holding particles for authentication for expected results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambudiri/ Ryner et al., as discussed above, in view of Kohli et al. (US 20180253464) .
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above, wherein the metadata is the first identifier, the second identifier, and the article information. The first and second devices have been discussed above. Authenticity is interpreted to be taught as when the information obtained matches the information that is acquired.
However, the prior art is silent to added into the metadata in the block chain when authenticity is determined.
Kohli et al. generally teaches added data toa a blockchain (paragraph [0171]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to maintain the authenticity and security of the item/ object each time it changes hands or is processed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I. WALSH/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
