Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/207,225

SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND METHODS OF AUTHENTICATING SIGNED ITEMS

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
May 13, 2025
Examiner
LAKHANI, ANDREW C
Art Unit
3629
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Genuine Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
22%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
53%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 22% of cases
22%
Career Allow Rate
39 granted / 174 resolved
-29.6% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
208
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§103
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 174 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
DETAILED ACTION This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the originally filed specification and claims [May 13, 2025]. Claims 1 and 2 are currently pending and have been considered below. 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. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter. In terms of step 1, claims 1 and 2 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. In terms of step 2(a)(1), independent claim 1 is directed towards, “A method comprising: capturing a first image of a unique code on a physical item at a first time of a session; capturing, a second image of a participant affixing a signature to the physical item during the session; capturing, a third image of the signature and the unique code on the physical item at a second time of the session; and generating, an authentication asset including the unique code superimposed on one or more of the first image, the second image, or the third image”. The claims are describing a collection of information (image information) that is used to generate an authentication asset with a unique code. This falls into a legal/commercial interaction that provides authenticated autographs for memorabilia. As such, claim 1 is directed towards an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping. The claim further describes a collection of information and displaying the results that falls into a mental process. A person with pen and paper would be able to capture and provide a unique code superimposed based on authentication of a signature on an item. Further, the claim falls within the mental process in terms of being within a technical environment (capturing with cameras and system elements). As such, the claim also describes an additional abstract idea under the mental process grouping. Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claim 1 are, “by one or more cameras of an authentication system, by the one or more cameras, by the one or more cameras, by one or more processors of the authentication system, including the unique code superimposed on one or more of the first image, the second image, or the third image”. The camera, computer elements, and unique code are described in the originally filed specification [26-32] and figure 1. The additional elements are merely described as tools to implement the identified abstract idea. The claim is not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 are, “by one or more cameras of an authentication system, by the one or more cameras, by the one or more cameras, by one or more processors of the authentication system, including the unique code superimposed on one or more of the first image, the second image, or the third image”. The camera, computer elements, and unique code are described in the originally filed specification [26-32] and figure 1. The additional elements are merely described as tools to implement the identified abstract idea. The claim is not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claim 2 is further describing the identified abstract idea and not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claim is directed towards, “generating, by the one or more processors, session data representing the session, wherein the session data includes one or more of time data or location data associated with the session; and wherein the authentication asset includes the session data superimposed on the one or more of the first image, the second image, or the third image”. The claim is further describing the commercial/legal interaction in terms of generating further elements of the authentication information and providing it on the image. Further, in terms of the mental process, a person would be able to collect and provide the location/time information provided. The claim is not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. As such, the claim is not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vildosola et al [9,947,015], hereafter Vildosola. Regarding claim 1, Vildosola discloses a method comprising: capturing, by one or more cameras of an authentication system, a first image of a unique code on a physical item at a first time of a session (C11:9-46; Vildosola discloses capturing a generated code using a mobile device camera. The unique code is interpreted through the start code for the memorabilia signing event.); capturing, by the one or more cameras, a second image of a participant affixing a signature to the physical item during the session (Fig 1, 5B, and C7:40 to C8:8; Vildosola discloses that a camera can capture a person signing the memorabilia during a session.); capturing, by the one or more cameras, a third image of the signature and the unique code on the physical item at a second time of the session; and generating, by one or more processors of the authentication system, an authentication asset including the unique code superimposed on one or more of the first image, the second image, or the third image (C8:18 to C9:15; Vildosola discloses authenticating based on captured code and other data verified signature certificate for the item. In terms of the third image and superimposed certificate, Vildosola further discloses the code scanning and verification image within C11:25-65.). Regarding claim 2, Vildosola discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, session data representing the session, wherein the session data includes one or more of time data or location data associated with the session; and wherein the authentication asset includes the session data superimposed on the one or more of the first image, the second image, or the third image (C8:18 to C9:15; Vildosola discloses authenticating based on captured code and other data verified signature certificate for the item. In terms of the third image and superimposed certificate, Vildosola further discloses the code scanning and verification image within C11:25-65.). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Noyes [2001/0033676] (autograph verification); Savarese [2023/0385850] (memorabilia verification and authentication); Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST). 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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. /ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 13, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591858
TURF MAINTENANCE SYSTEM AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12572898
SITE MAINTENANCE UTILIZING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12554014
DETERMINING RESTROOM OCCUPANCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12488355
LIMITING BATTERY DEGRADATION FOR A GROUP OF VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12475519
METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING BASED ON INTELLIGENT GAS REGULATORY INTERNET OF THINGS (IoTs)
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
22%
Grant Probability
53%
With Interview (+30.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 174 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month