DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 04/09/2025.
Claims 1-19 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance outlined in the MPEP 2106, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 9, 16, exemplified in method steps of claim 16:
Applying… the unique function to the obtained identification number to produce a generated authentication number;
determining… whether the prestored authentication number obtained from the inlay matches the generated authentication number.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, three is no technical problem being solved and there is no technical solution to a technical problem being recited and each of these limitations fall within a combination of groups of abstract ideas: Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. 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); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding Mental Processes, the aforementioned steps may both be performed in the mind; note there is no particular “unique function” nor particular method of “applying” required nor recited and such “unique function” even if intended to be complicated is not out of the realm of being mentally applied. For example, many math students routinely perform mental application of complicated functions in their minds. Similarly, making a determination of a match based upon comparison is a mental process, i.e. a mental comparison. Such observations, evaluations, and judgments are considered mental processes per Cyberfource and 2019 PEG.
Regarding Mathematical Concepts, the aforementioned steps may also both be considered mathematical concepts; again the “unique function” is a generic mathematical concept and the idea of matching is a comparison which is also a type of mathematical concept. Mathematical calculations and formulas are abstract ideas per Flook, and Benson, and MPEP 2106.
Regarding Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, these steps may also be considered as falling into the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, generating a number, retaining a copy thereof in personal records and provisioning a copy thereof to accompany an article of value by which authenticity may be established in the future via comparison to establish a match, is a very long standing business practice (e.g. checking driver license id and user’s face against id and photo held in database during traffic interrogation, etc…). Furthermore, applying a function by which to generate a trusted number falls into generic encryption which is an attempt at mitigating risk of fraud, i.e. it is a business precaution to ensure authenticity, which is another long standing business practice. Managing business processes are abstract ideas per Alice, Bilski, and MPEP 2106 (e.g., managing legal obligations, managing interactions between parties, etc…).
Examiner finds no technical solution being claimed and no technical problem being solved despite reference to the use of otherwise technical devices such as rfid reader/writer and rfid chips with memory because applicant’s invention is not directed towards an improvement in the structure or physical design of such rfid reader/writers themselves nor in the actual physical, structural characteristics or design of of the rfid chips, inlays, nor memories themselves. No technical solution is recited nor claimed.
The claimed method and system is directed to the abstract idea of Applying a unique function to an obtained identification number to produce a generated authentication number, and then determining whether a prestored authentication number obtained from a memory matches the generated authentication number, which falls under any one of a number of abstract ideas including mathematical concepts, mental processes, and organizing human activity.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case product/item authentication via identification number comparison using info stored in rfid tags) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data-gathering, storage, and transmittal). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A method for verifying authenticity of products or goods, each product or good having a wireless inlay, each inlay including an antenna, a chip operably connected to the antenna and having an inlay memory, a unique identification number unalterably stored in the inlay memory, and a unique prestored authentication number stored in the inlay memory, the prestored authentication number having been previously generated by applying a unique function to the identification number, the method comprising: obtaining, by a wireless reader, the identification number from the inlay via the antenna … obtaining, by the wireless reader, the prestored authentication number from the inlay;… by a wireless reader (and/or reader/writer)….”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “obtaining” data, e.g. via wireless communication, nor is it an improvement to the technical design of an rfid reader/writer nor of an rfid chip, memory, antenna, etc… Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. i.e. in this case product/item authentication via identification number comparison using info stored in rfid tags) or, are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data-gathering, storage, and transmittal) as pertains to the already identified abstract ideas and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. rfid reader/writer, rfid tag with inlay/memory, and antenna, etc…) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. i.e. in this case product/item authentication via identification number comparison using info stored in rfid tags), or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “…wherein the inlay memory includes a read-only memory (ROM) and an electronic product code (EPC) memory.” However, applicant has not invented rom and epc memories but is instead merely describing the generic type of memory rfid chips are known to have and the purpose for which they are known to be used; this is nothing more than a description of the context in which the abstract idea is claimed as operating but it is not significantly mor than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the MPEP 2106 discussing 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (KR 101861304 B1; hereinafter, "Lee") in view of Kobayashi (U.S. 2023/0297988 A1; hereinafter, "Kobayashi").
Claims 1, 16:
Pertaining to claims 1, 16, exemplified per the limitations of claim 1, Lee as shown teaches the following:
A system for verifying authenticity of products or goods, the system comprising:
a wireless inlay (Lee, see Fig. 1, 2, [0006], [0013], and [0031], regarding “RFID tag” [wireless inlay]) comprising:
an antenna (Lee, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0006] and [0042], teaching: the RFID tag [wireless inlay] has an antenna for communication with an RFID reader.),
a chip operably connected to the antenna and having an inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031], e.g.: “…According to the standard, the rfid tag [inlay] includes four memory banks [an inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory, a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user…”),
a unique identification number unalterably stored in the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0031]: “…the tid bank is a rom in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded,…”; ROM is read only memory and therefore the unique ID stored therein is “unalterable”.), and
a unique prestored authentication number stored in the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0013]: “…the additional number [authentication number] is assigned differently [is unique] for each article…”; and per, [0031]-[0032]: “…the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user… the sku number and the additional number [unique prestored authentication number] may be recorded [stored] in the epc memory…”), […]
; and
a wireless reader (Lee, see citations noted supra, including Fig. 1 and [0042]-[0043] regarding “detector 100” [wireless reader] which includes “reader unit 201”; where: “..the rfid reader unit 201 calls all rfid tags c1 within a range in which the wireless channel reaches, and then identifies rfid tags having tag identification numbers…”), the reader being configured to:
obtain the identification number from the inlay via the antenna (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0013]: “…the tag identification number [the identification number] of the identified rfid tag as described above is read [obtained] and it offers [is transmitted] to the counter section...”; see also at least [0043].),
[…]
obtain the prestored authentication number from the inlay via the antenna (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0061] Lee’s additional number [the prestored authentication number] is read [obtained] by reader unit 201 and may be counted by counter unit 211, etc….),
Although Lee teaches the above limitations, and as shown supra, teaches he performs a step of reading [obtaining] his tag identification number [the identification number] from a rom (read only memory) memory of his rfid tag, and teaches that he performs a step of storing his “predetermined additional number” [unique prestored authentication number] at least into the epc memory of his rfid tag (indicating he must have generated it at some point before storing it), he may not explicitly delve into the minutia regarding how he produces/generates his “predetermined additional number”. However, regarding the following limitations, Lee himself is found to provide motivation to perform the below recited limitations:
the prestored authentication number having been previously generated by applying a unique function to the identification number; apply the unique function to the obtained identification number to produce a generated authentication number (Examiner notes Lee provides motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these limitations in question, e.g. see citations noted supra in view of at least [0013] and [0030] teaching, ‘TagID’ = ‘A’ + ‘SKU’; and both the TagID and Additional number ‘A’ are disclosed as being unique for each article and associated rfid tag. Therefore, Examiner finds it within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art that “A” = “TagID” – “SKU” [apply the unique function to the obtained identification number to produce a generated authentication number]; e.g. Lee explicitly teaches: “…The tag identification number [identification number] is obtained by adding [an algebraic function] a predetermined additional number [the unique prestored authentication number] to the sku number, and the same sku number is assigned to a plurality of articles of the same type, and the additional number is assigned differently [uniquely] for each article…”. Examiner also notes that the ‘subtraction property of equality’ [another algebraic function] in algebra is found to be within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art and this subtraction property of equality in algebra states that if the same number is subtracted from both sides of an equation, the equation remains true and balanced. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Lee provides motivation to predicate the generation of his “predetermined additional number” [unique prestored authentication number] as a function of his tag identification number [identification number] because his “additional number” [prestored authentication number] is taught as being a component of his “tag identification number” itself; i.e. per the aforementioned algebraic property, applied to “TagID” = “A” + “SKU”, then it is always true that “A” = “TagID” – “SKU” [apply the unique function to the obtained identification number to produce a generated authentication number]. Furthermore, the “additional number” [prestored authentication number] is disclosed as being stored in the memory, e.g. the epc memory, and must be generated at some point before [having been previously generated] being stored therein and the aforementioned function is a known function, within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, to use to generate Lee’s “additional number” [authentication number] before storing it in Lee’s epc memory.)
Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to generate Lee’s predetermined “additional number” [the prestored authentication number] from Lee’s tag identification number before storing it in epc memory simply by applying this algebraic subtraction property [function] to a predetermined tag identification number [identification number] where such function is merely the subtraction of a particular sku number from Lee’s unique tag identification number [identification number], rendering Lee’s unique additional number [authentication number] because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Although Lee teaches the aforementioned limitations, he may not explicitly teach an additional step of checking for a match of his read [obtained] additional number [the prestored authentication number]. However, regarding this feature, Lee in view of Kobayashi teaches the following:
determine whether the prestored authentication number obtained from the inlay
matches the generated authentication number (Kobayashi, see at least [0154], teaching, e.g.: “…The bank system matches the personal authentication number registered in advance and the personal authentication number received from the terminal apparatus 10 (S237), and notifies the terminal apparatus 10 of the result of the matching (S238)…”; Examiner finds Kobayashi’s “authentication number received from the terminal apparatus” is analogous to Lee’s “additional number” read from his rfid tag, and Kobayashi’s “personal authentication number registered in advance” is analogous to an “additional number” generated per the technique already disclosed as obvious per the teachings of Lee as noted supra.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Kobayashi (directed towards a technique of checking a stored authentication number from a device with a trusted generated authentication number to check for authentication) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lee (already directed towards a system/method of attaching rfid tags to articles, e.g. for sale, which store various unique IDs and numbers which may be used for authentication) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Kobayashi to the device/method of Lee in order to perform the limitation in question to check whether Lee’s prestored unique additional number, i.e. prestored in an rfid tag in an epc memory, matches a trusted such additional number generated based upon function of a read unique tag id number stored on the rom of his rfid tag, because Kobayashi is pertinent to the objectives of Lee and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 2:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the inlay memory includes a read-only memory (ROM) and an electronic product code (EPC) memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031], e.g.: “…According to the standard, the rfid tag [inlay] includes four memory banks [an inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory [EPC memory], a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom [ROM] in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user…”).
Claim 3:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 2, wherein the identification number is stored in the ROM of the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031], e.g.: “…According to the standard, the rfid tag [inlay] includes four memory banks [an inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory [EPC memory], a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom [ROM] in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user…”).
Claim 4:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 2, wherein the prestored authentication number is stored in the EPC memory of the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031]-[0032], e.g.: “…the additional number [authentication number] may be recorded in the epc memory…”).
Claim 5:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the unique function is a variation of a mod operation (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. algebraic subtraction is a function which is a “variation” of a mod operation; i.e. ‘a’ mod ‘b’ = ‘a’ – ‘b’*[a/b]; e.g. 17 mod 5 = (17-15) = 2; 17 mod 10 = (17-10) = 7)
Claim 6:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 5, wherein the mod operation is one of a mod 10 operation, a mod 34 operation, or a mod 43 operation. (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. algebraic subtraction is a function which is a “variation” of a mod operation regardless of what the base of the mod actually is; i.e. ‘a’ mod ‘b’ = ‘a’ – ‘b’*[a/b]; e.g. 17 mod 5 = (17-15) = 2; 17 mod 10 = (17-10) = 7)
Claim 8:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the chip is an RFID chip and the wireless reader is an RFID reader (Lee, see citations noted supra, including Figs. 1, 2, [0030]-[0032] and [0041], regarding e.g. “rfid chip” and “rfid reader unit 201”, etc…)
Claim 17:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The method of claim 16, wherein the unique function is a variation of a mod operation (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. algebraic subtraction is a function which is a “variation” of a mod operation; i.e. ‘a’ mod ‘b’ = ‘a’ – ‘b’*[a/b]; e.g. 17 mod 5 = (17-15) = 2; 17 mod 10 = (17-10) = 7)
Claim 18:
Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The method of claim 17, wherein the mod operation is one of a mod 10 operation, a mod 34 operation, or a mod 43 operation. (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. algebraic subtraction is a function which is a “variation” of a mod operation regardless of what the base of the mod actually is; i.e. ‘a’ mod ‘b’ = ‘a’ – ‘b’*[a/b]; e.g. 17 mod 5 = (17-15) = 2; 17 mod 10 = (17-10) = 7)
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Kobayashi, further in view of Mo et al (U.S. 2007/0069852 A1; hereinafter, "Mo").
Claim 7:
Although Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends, including an rfid reader [wireless reader], they may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Lee in view of Mo teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the wireless reader includes a reader memory configured to store the unique function (Mo, see at least [0010], teaching, e.g.: “…The RFID reader [wireless reader] further includes: a random key creating unit for creating a random key value; and a hash function calculating unit [memory configured to store a unique function] for calculating the hash function value from the random key value, wherein the RFID reader creates a message for recording the hash function value as a new access password of the RFID tag and transmitting the message to the RFID tag. The RFID reader memory stores the random key and the hash function value calculated from the random key in a table…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Mo (directed towards a technique whereby an rfid reader contains a a hash function calculating unit [memory configured to store a unique function] for calculating the hash function value from the random key value [analogous to applicant’s authentication number]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lee (already directed towards system/method using an rfid reader/writer to read and write unique identification numbers from/to an rfid tag chip’s memory, such as reading from rom and writing to epc memory, etc…) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Mo to the device/method of Lee in order to perform the limitation in question because Mo is pertinent to the rfid chip reading/writing techniques of Lee and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 19:
Although Lee/Kobayashi teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends, including an rfid reader [wireless reader], they may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Lee in view of Mo teaches the following:
The method of claim 16, further comprising storing, in a memory of the reader, the unique function (Mo, see at least [0010], teaching, e.g.: “…The RFID reader [wireless reader] further includes: a random key creating unit for creating a random key value; and a hash function calculating unit [memory configured to store a unique function] for calculating the hash function value from the random key value, wherein the RFID reader creates a message for recording the hash function value as a new access password of the RFID tag and transmitting the message to the RFID tag. The RFID reader memory stores the random key and the hash function value calculated from the random key in a table…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Mo (directed towards a technique whereby an rfid reader contains a a hash function calculating unit [memory configured to store a unique function] for calculating the hash function value from the random key value [analogous to applicant’s authentication number]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Lee (already directed towards system/method using an rfid reader/writer to read and write unique identification numbers from/to an rfid tag chip’s memory, such as reading from rom and writing to epc memory, etc…) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Mo to the device/method of Lee in order to perform the limitation in question because Mo is pertinent to the rfid chip reading/writing techniques of Lee and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee et al. (KR 101861304 B1; hereinafter, "Lee") in view of Official Notice.
Claim 9:
Pertaining to claim 9, Lee as shown teaches the following:
A system for providing a unique prestored authentication number for authenticity verification of products or goods, the system comprising:
a wireless inlay (Lee, see Fig. 1, 2, [0006], [0013], and [0031], regarding “RFID tag” [wireless inlay]) comprising:
an antenna (Lee, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0006] and [0042], teaching: the RFID tag [wireless inlay] has an antenna for communication with an RFID reader.),
a chip operably connected to the antenna and having an inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031], e.g.: “…According to the standard, the rfid tag [inlay] includes four memory banks [an inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory, a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user…”); and
a unique identification number unalterably stored in the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0031]: “…the tid bank is a rom in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded,…”; ROM is read only memory and therefore the unique ID stored therein is “unalterable”.); and
a wireless reader[/writer] (Lee, see citations noted supra, including Fig. 1 and [0042]-[0043] regarding “detector 100” [wireless reader] which includes “reader unit 201”; where: “..the rfid reader unit 201 calls all rfid tags c1 within a range in which the wireless channel reaches, and then identifies rfid tags having tag identification numbers…”), the reader[/writer] being configured to:
obtain the identification number from the inlay via the antenna (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0013]: “…the tag identification number [the identification number] of the identified rfid tag as described above is read [obtained] and it offers [is transmitted] to the counter section...”; see also at least [0043].),
Furthermore, although Lee teaches the above limitations, and as shown supra, teaches he performs a step of reading [obtaining] his tag identification number [the identification number] from a rom (read only memory) memory of his rfid tag, and teaches that he performs a step of storing his “predetermined additional number” [unique prestored authentication number] at least into the epc memory of his rfid tag (indicating he must have generated it at some point before storing it), he may not explicitly delve into the minutia regarding how he produces/generates/obtains his “predetermined additional number” [unique authentication number]. However, regarding the following limitations, Lee himself is found to provide motivation to perform the below recited limitations:
apply a unique function to the obtained identification number to obtain a unique
authentication number (Examiner notes Lee provides motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform these limitations in question, e.g. see citations noted supra in view of at least [0013] and [0030] teaching, ‘TagID’ = ‘A’ + ‘SKU’; and both the TagID and Additional number ‘A’ are disclosed as being unique for each article and associated rfid tag. Therefore, Examiner finds it within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art that “A” = “TagID” – “SKU” [apply a unique function to the obtained identification number to obtain a unique authentication number]; e.g. Lee explicitly teaches: “…The tag identification number [identification number] is obtained by adding [an algebraic function] a predetermined additional number [the unique prestored authentication number] to the sku number, and the same sku number is assigned to a plurality of articles of the same type, and the additional number is assigned differently [uniquely] for each article…”. Examiner also notes that the ‘subtraction property of equality’ [another algebraic function] in algebra is found to be within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art and this subtraction property of equality in algebra states that if the same number is subtracted from both sides of an equation, the equation remains true and balanced. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Lee provides motivation to predicate the generation of his “predetermined additional number” [unique prestored authentication number] as a function of his tag identification number [identification number] because his “additional number” [prestored authentication number] is taught as being a component of his “tag identification number” itself; i.e. per the aforementioned algebraic property, applied to “TagID” = “A” + “SKU”, then it is always true that “A” = “TagID” – “SKU” [apply a unique function to the obtained identification number to obtain a unique authentication number]. Furthermore, the “additional number” [prestored authentication number] is disclosed as being stored in the memory, e.g. the epc memory, and must be generated at some point before [having been previously generated] being stored therein and the aforementioned function is a known function, within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, to use to generate Lee’s “additional number” [authentication number] before storing it in Lee’s epc memory.)
Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to generate Lee’s predetermined “additional number” [the prestored authentication number] from Lee’s tag identification number before storing it in epc memory simply by applying this algebraic subtraction property [function] to a predetermined tag identification number [identification number] where such function is merely the subtraction of a particular sku number from Lee’s unique tag identification number [identification number], rendering Lee’s unique additional number [authentication number] because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Although Lee teaches the above limitations and teaches “detector 100” [wireless rfid reader] which includes “reader unit 201” and teaches that his “predetermined additional number” [an authentication number] is recorded [written] into the memory of the rfid tag, such as into the epc memory, and this same memory may be recorded into by an administrator or user, suggesting the use of an rfid writer or reader/writer, Lee may not explicitly teach, within a single embodiment, an rfid “reader/writer”. Nonetheless, Lee in view of Official Notice teaches the following:
Reader/writer… configured to: …write the authentication number to the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0013] regarding recording a “predetermined additional number” [the authentication number] into the memory of the rfid tag, such as into the epc memory; see also at least [0030]-[0031], teaching, e.g.: “…the rfid tag includes four memory banks [inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory, a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom in which a unique identification number assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user. For example, both the sku number and the additional number [the authentication number] may be recorded [written into] in the epc memory,…”; herein, Lee explicitly contemplates recording into the epc memory, by an administrator or user, the “predetermined additional number” [the authentication number] which therefore suggests/provides motivation to supply some type of device to perform this action of writing into the epc memory of the chip of this rfid tag the noted “predetermined additional number” [the authentication number]. Therefore, Examiner finds that there is motivation supplied by Lee himself to provide an rfid writer and/or an rfid reader/writer device to enable the teaching explicitly suggested by Lee. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following fact: rfid reader/writers were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, in view of these findings, the Examiner understands it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided such a known rfid reader/writer to perform the multiple read and record actions suggested as necessary by Lee, e.g. to record Lee’s “predetermined additional number” [the authentication number] into his epc memory, such as by an administrator or other user as well as reading various numbers from the memories of the rfid chip tag, because combination rfid reader/writers were already well-known and using one device would be beneficial as would be perceived by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, e.g. a read/writer may ostensibly simplify the number of devices an administrator or user would be required to use to perform the various steps explicitly or implied by Lee’s teachings thereby making it an obvious modification or variation, and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 10:
Lee/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 9, wherein the inlay memory includes a read-only memory (ROM) and an electronic product code (EPC) memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031], e.g.: “…According to the standard, the rfid tag [inlay] includes four memory banks [an inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory [EPC memory], a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom [ROM] in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user…”).
Claim 11:
Lee/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 10, wherein the identification number is stored in the ROM of the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031], e.g.: “…According to the standard, the rfid tag [inlay] includes four memory banks [an inlay memory]: a transponder id (tid) memory, an epc memory [EPC memory], a user memory, and a reserved memory. Among them, the tid bank is a rom [ROM] in which a unique identification number [unique identification number] assigned by the rfid chip maker is recorded, and cannot be changed by an administrator or a user, but the remaining epc memory, user memory, and spare memory can be arbitrarily recorded by the user…”).
Claim 12:
Lee/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 10, wherein the wireless reader/writer is configured to write the authentication number to the EPC memory of the inlay memory (Lee, see citations noted supra, including at least [0031]-[0032], e.g.: “…the additional number [authentication number] may be recorded in the epc memory…”).
Claim 13:
Lee/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 9, wherein the unique function is a variation of a mod operation (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. algebraic subtraction is a function which is a “variation” of a mod operation; i.e. ‘a’ mod ‘b’ = ‘a’ – ‘b’*[a/b]; e.g. 17 mod 5 = (17-15) = 2; 17 mod 10 = (17-10) = 7)
Claim 14:
Lee/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 13, wherein the mod operation is one of a mod 10 operation, a mod 34 operation, or a mod 43 operation. (Lee, see citations noted supra, e.g. algebraic subtraction is a function which is a “variation” of a mod operation regardless of what the base of the mod actually is; i.e. ‘a’ mod ‘b’ = ‘a’ – ‘b’*[a/b]; e.g. 17 mod 5 = (17-15) = 2; 17 mod 10 = (17-10) = 7)
Claim 15:
Lee/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Lee teaches the following: The system of claim 9, wherein the chip is an RFID chip and the wireless
reader/writer is an RFID reader/writer (Lee, see citations noted supra, including Figs. 1, 2, [0030]-[0032] and [0041], regarding e.g. “rfid chip” and rfid reader/writer per the independent claim 9).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6226619 B1 to Halperin, discussing “A method and system for preventing counterfeiting of an item, include an interrogatable tag attached to the item. The item includes visible indicia for comparison with secret, non-duplicable information stored in the tag designating authenticity…”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621