DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed August 17, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 3-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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 1-20 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards, “capture a first image of a unique code located on a physical item at a beginning of a session prior to a participant affixing a signature to the physical item, capture a second image of the participant affixing the signature to the physical item during the session, capture a third image of the signature and the unique code on the physical item at an end of the session, and generate an authentication asset including the unique code”. The claims are describing an authentication system that is based on captured images and superimposing a unique code on the first, second, or third image. The claims are describing an authentication business relation during an autograph session. As such, this falls into an abstract idea under the certain method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims are further providing additional abstract ideas in terms of being directed towards a mental process. A person would be able to capture images during a session to provide an authentication asset within a first/second/third image. This consideration is that the image capturing is a mental process in a computer environment in terms of a person utilizing a camera to capture the images and generate an authenticated asset (autographed item). As such, the claims are also directed towards an 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 the independent claims are, “by one or more cameras of an authentication system (claim 1); An authentication system comprising: one or more cameras; and one or more processors configured to (claim 8); A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: claim 15); by one or more cameras; visually 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. Further, the superimposed is described in the originally filed specification [39 and 48] and figure 3. The superimposed is merely utilizing generic technology to implement the abstract idea, specifically in terms of the item authentication within the image capturing. Superimposing the data is not described as a technical improvement but rather utilizing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are 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 (claim 1); An authentication system comprising: one or more cameras; and one or more processors configured to (claim 8); A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: claim 15); by one or more cameras; visually 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. Further, the superimposed is described in the originally filed specification [39 and 48] and figure 3. The superimposed is merely utilizing generic technology to implement the abstract idea, specifically in terms of the item authentication within the image capturing. Superimposing the data is not described as a technical improvement but rather utilizing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 2, 9, and 16 are further describing the identified abstract idea and not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claim is directed towards (as represented by claim 2), “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 claims are not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are further describing the abstract idea without providing additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the unique code comprises a matrix barcode label”. The claims are merely describing the collection or content within the captured image being a matrix barcode. The matrix barcode is not a technical additional element as it’s merely the content of the image captured. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the first image, the second image, and the third image are frames of a video captured by the one or more cameras”, “wherein the authentication asset is stored on a server and is accessible in response to scanning the unique code on the physical item after the session”, “wherein the capturing of the first image is initiated in response to scanning the unique code”, and “wherein the authentication asset includes the unique code visually superimposed on the first image, the second image, and the third image”. The additional elements are with respect to capturing with video by the camera, storing on a server, capturing in response to scanning the code, and superimposing the image. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [26-28 and 39-47]. The additional elements are merely utilizing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Examiner’s Note on Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are directed towards limitations that are not taught by the prior art in terms of the specific steps and combination towards the order of operations for capturing images and superimposing on an image based on the authentication asset. The prior art considered relevant are Kim [2010/0250616], McWilliam et al [6,839,453], Vildosa et al [9,947,015], and Young [6,591,252]. Further NPL includes The Realest “Witness-Based Authentication” (2026). The considered prior art teaches elements of authentication based on captured images, but the specific claims provide order of operation steps in terms of the type of image captured and the superimposed code on the images. As such, the claimed invention is novel and nonobvious with respect to the prior art.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed August 17, 2026 on pages 6-7 regarding the 35 USC 101, specifically that the claim limitations are directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are describing a business and commercial interaction, as well as a mental process with utilizing a camera as a tool. The claims provide steps of capturing images during an autograph session and superimposing a unique code onto the first, second, or third image. Thus the independent claims are describing a mental process and certain method of organizing human activity. Further, the camera and other technical additional elements are merely generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The claims are not directed towards a technical improvement. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-20 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended and newly added claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed August 17, 2026 on pages 7-9 regarding the prior art rejection, specifically that the claim limitations are not taught by the prior art. Examiner agrees. Claims 1-20 are directed towards limitations that are not taught by the prior art in terms of the specific steps and combination towards the order of operations for capturing images and superimposing on an image based on the authentication asset. The prior art considered relevant are Kim [2010/0250616], McWilliam et al [6,839,453], Vildosa et al [9,947,015], and Young [6,591,252]. Further NPL includes The Realest “Witness-Based Authentication” (2026). The considered prior art teaches elements of authentication based on captured images, but the specific claims provide order of operation steps in terms of the type of image captured and the superimposed code on the images. As such, the claimed invention is novel and nonobvious with respect to the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim [2010/0250616];
McWilliam et al [6,839,453];
Vildosa et al [9,947,015];
Young [6,591,252];
The Realest, “Witness-Based Authentication”, accessed October 13, 2026 (2026);
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights